Oral
Answers to
Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Victims Law

Henry Smith: When the Government plan to undertake a consultation on proposals for a victims law.

Edward Argar: Mr Speaker, I will endeavour to croak my way through my response.
We published the first ever pan-Government victims strategy in September 2018 containing 88 commitments, of which we have already implemented 24, to better support victims of crime. Among those is a commitment to consult this year on the revised victims code and details of victim-focused legislation, reaffirming our manifesto commitment to such a law.

Henry Smith: I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences and expressing shock at the terrorist attack in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday. Sadly, it highlights the issue of the effect on victims of terror incidents, whether in this country or abroad. When will the Government come forward with a law to ensure that victims are properly supported, because all too many reports from victims in previous incidents suggest that that has not been the case?

Edward Argar: I join my hon. Friend in his expression of condolence and sympathy to all those who were affected by the horrific events in Sri Lanka over the weekend. It is vital that we get any new legislation right—hence our commitment to consult. We will first revise and strengthen the victims code and then identify any legislative gaps arising from that. We will consult on a victims law this year and bring forward legislation subsequently when parliamentary time allows.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister and the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for what they said. Many Members will have noted what is on the Annunciator, but for those who have not I simply give notice of the intention for us to hold one minute’s silence in respectful memory of those who tragically and horrifically lost their lives in Sri Lanka, and that will take place after the urgent questions and immediately before the first of the ministerial statements.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that the tragic victims are those people who cannot speak because they have been killed by an accident or a violent crime? Will he meet me to discuss the case of a bereaved family whose little girl was killed 15 months ago as a driver crashed into a bus queue? The driver not only killed the little girl, an only child, but seriously injured another woman. They have not been prosecuted. Can we have a chat about that?

Edward Argar: I would not want to comment on specific cases on the Floor of the House, and although decisions on prosecution are not a matter for Ministers, I would, as always, be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Philip Hollobone: If prolific repeat offenders spent longer in jail there would be fewer victims of crime in all of our communities. Does the Minister agree?

Edward Argar: I believe that the key to seeing fewer victims of crime is effective rehabilitation of offenders and breaking the cycle of offending. That is exactly what I and the Secretary of State are focused on.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My constituent Kristian Thompson would have been 27 years old today had his life not been taken when he was 19 years old after he was the victim of a one-punch attack. His mam, Maxine, set up the charity One Punch UK. This week is One Punch Awareness Week when many people who have lost loved ones are pleading with the Government to follow Australia and Canada and create a one-punch law imposing a minimum sentence for perpetrators. Why are the Government continuing to resist doing so?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I send my sympathies to Kristian’s family and friends on the terrible events that she has just described. I am very happy to look at what she is proposing, and if she would like to write to me, I will respond as fully as I can.

Gloria De Piero: A vital feature of justice for victims is financial redress, so why have this Government presided over a near 60% fall in the number of victims of violent crime receiving payments from the criminal injuries compensation scheme?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her question. Our ongoing review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme has one simple aim: to make sure that it better supports victims and reflects their needs in the 21st century. Indeed, last year we awarded compensation of more than £154 million, and recently, we have announced that we are abolishing the “same-roof” rule so that many more victims can make claims. In respect of the specific issue to which she refers, which I believe was covered in The Guardian newspaper recently, I would sound a slight note of caution about the figures for 2010-11 being a benchmark as I understand there is a possibility that they were inflated that year due to a £30 million pay-out specifically for compensation for asbestos-related conditions. None the less, I welcome her engagement with the review that we will be undertaking this summer.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Jeff Smith: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection.

David Gauke: The Government are committed to providing IPP prisoners with opportunities to progress to the point at which they are safe to release. Our primary responsibility is public protection. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation service and the Parole Board are delivering a joint action plan to improve IPP prisoners’ sentence progression. In 2017-18, three quarters of those considered by the Parole Board were either recommended for release or a move to open conditions. This shows that our approach is working.

Jeff Smith: My constituent Wayne Bell is currently in the 12th year of a sentence for which the original tariff was four years. Owing to his significant mental health issues, he is unable to engage with the parole process and the review process, and his mental health problems are exacerbated by the hopelessness of his situation. Does the Secretary of State realise that prisoners with mental health issues can get trapped in a vicious cycle where it becomes almost impossible to achieve parole, and will he look at interventions that could be considered to enable Wayne’s cases and others like it to be resolved?

David Gauke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. I am happy to write to him on the individual case, which has a number of complexities, as I am sure he is aware. I have mentioned the joint action plan to improve IPP prisoners’ sentence progression. These measures include case reviews led by psychologists for those prisoners not making the expected progress, an increased number of places on specialist progression regimes, and greatly improved access to rehabilitative programmes. I continue to be ambitious to ensure that we do everything we can in this area, remembering that public protection must remain our priority.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said about his ambitions for IPP prisoners. Does the joint action plan have an end date—that is, is there a date beyond which we should not detain people under these sorts of sentences?

David Gauke: In the end, it comes down to the decisions made by the Parole Board, which has to make its decisions based on public protection. In some cases— regrettable though it may be—if someone is not safe to be released, the Parole Board must make that decision. We need to ensure that we do everything we can to progress these cases as best we can. As I have said, we have made progress in recent years.

Ellie Reeves: The latest figures show that there are still nearly 2,500 prisoners serving IPP sentences. These sentences often have punitive recall conditions, which means that people might be returned to prison for fairly minor breaches of their licence conditions, resulting in many prisoners serving well beyond their original tariffs. It was previously a target of the Parole Board to reduce IPP prisoner numbers to 15,000 by 2020, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that this happens?

David Gauke: Obviously I want to reduce the numbers, and one of the reasons that we have provided additional support to the Parole Board is to enable it to do so. In the end, it comes down to individual decisions in respect of particular individuals, and some cases present a number of challenging factors. Decisions have to strike the right balance between progressing people as we should and ensuring that we protect the public.

Access to Criminal Justice

Virendra Sharma: What steps he is taking to increase access to the criminal justice system.

Teresa Pearce: What steps he is taking to increase access to the criminal justice system.

Janet Daby: What steps he is taking to increase access to the criminal justice system.

Lucy Frazer: It is vital that our criminal justice system remains fair and accessible, and we are taking a number of steps to ensure justice within it. Legal aid is a very important part of that process, and last year we spent almost £900 million on criminal legal aid alone. However, our court system also needs to be modern and up to date, so we are spending £1 billion on technology to bring our court system up to date for the 21st century.

Virendra Sharma: I thank the Minister for her response. The Law Society has highlighted the fact that low criminal legal aid fees are having an adverse impact on the number of new, younger lawyers. Criminal legal aid fees for solicitors have not been increased since the 1990s. Will the Government commit to raising fees for solicitors, at least in line with inflation?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, because those who work within the criminal justice system play a vital part in upholding justice. That is why, over the course of last year, we have consulted the professions and put a further £23 million into the advocates’ graduated fee scheme. It is also why we have recently announced that we will be doing a holistic review of criminal legal aid with regard to the professions, looking overall at a whole range of issues across the Bar and across the duty solicitor schemes. That review has already started.

Teresa Pearce: I thank the Minister for that reply, but there is a crisis in legal aid and in legal representation. The Law Society data says that within five to 10 years there will be insufficient criminal duty solicitors in many regions. She has mentioned the review and mentioned more money, but what specific steps will she take to make sure that people have their right to be represented while being interviewed by the police?

Lucy Frazer: Doing a review and putting in £23 million are specific steps to ensure that we get better justice. I am very grateful to the Law Society, which the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall   (Mr Sharma) mentioned, because it is actively engaged in our review, as are the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association.

Janet Daby: It is really good to hear that the Law Society is having such an impact on the Government. However, the Law Society has also published research that shows that the criminal legal aid means test is preventing families living in poverty from accessing justice. Although the Government will eventually review this, the review will not conclude until 2020, and it will be even further down the line when any changes come into place. Will the Minister therefore commit to taking action now to ensure that vulnerable people are still able to access justice?

Lucy Frazer: I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has highlighted that we have already committed to doing a review of the threshold for legal aid across the board, not just in relation to criminal law but civil law as well. It is very important that we get that review right. Legal aid has not been uprated for a number of years. We have committed to doing that, but not only that—we have already started the review.

Violence in Prisons

Vicky Ford: What recent steps he has taken to tackle violence in prisons.

Alex Norris: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of violence in prisons.

Rory Stewart: I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our deep horror at the recent attack against a prison officer in Nottingham prison. It is completely horrifying to see this happen. It must not happen again. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our prison officers for the work they do in very difficult circumstances keeping us safe. There are three main things we can do to stop this kind of thing happening again. We need to improve perimeter security, which means really searching people for weapons and drugs at the gate; we need to make sure that the conditions in the prison are decent and work; and, above all, we need to provide the training and support for prison officers to have the right kind of relationships with prisoners whereby things like this do not occur again.

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend the Minister vowed that if prison violence did not decrease, he would resign. I, for one, think that we have seen too many members of the Government resign. Could he give us an update on his own ambitions to stay in post?

Rory Stewart: As some people in the House will be aware, I promised to reduce violence in 10 key challenge prisons over a 12-month period. At the moment, the figures are looking reasonably positive. In other words, it looks as though, in the majority of these prisons, violence is coming down so hon. Members may be in the unfortunate position of still having me at this Dispatch Box in a few months’ time.

Alex Norris: As the Minister mentioned, on Sunday 14 April a prison officer at my local prison in Nottingham had his throat slashed with a razor by a prisoner in what his union calls a cowardly, unprovoked act. According to doctors, this young public servant—a brave man in his early 20s—came within millimetres of losing his life. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to this prison officer and to his thousands of colleagues facing this sort of violence every day, and does he agree with the union—the Prison Officers Association—that this ought to be treated as an attempted murder?

Rory Stewart: I absolutely agree that these are extraordinary public servants. This is a horrifying and completely unacceptable act. We need to punish the person who did it, and we need to punish them properly. At the moment, the charge that is being brought forward carries the maximum life sentence, as it should, but there is more that we can do. That includes body-worn cameras, the rolling out of PAVA spray and ensuring we have enough officers on the landings, which is why I am pleased that we now have the highest number of prison officers at any date since 2012.

Andrew Selous: Would there not be less violence in our prisons if there was a relentless focus from the first day in prison on getting prisoners work on release? We could do that by combining training in prison with employer and college support on release.

Rory Stewart: This is not an either/or. We have to be confident and practical about doing two things at the same time. Controlling prisons—these include some quite dangerous individuals—involves serious measures on searching people for drugs and weapons, but it also involves treating people like humans and turning their lives around, because that is the way we protect the public from the misery of crime through reoffending when these individuals are released from prison.

Vincent Cable: In the light of the recent disturbances among 16 and 17-year-olds at Feltham young offenders institution, is the Minister aware of the previous episodes of violence at the prison, which were attributed to the lack of education and training facilities, 23-hour confinement in cells and the mixing of remand and convicted prisoners? Why do lessons appear not to have been learned?

Rory Stewart: A lot of lessons have been learned since that initial event, but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; there was a very disturbing event two weeks ago. The basic challenge, as he will be aware, is getting the balance right between ensuring that people are motivated and focused on the regime and that there are high expectations around prisoners and prison officers. To some extent, it is like running a very difficult school, particularly when we are dealing with 16 to 18-year-olds. It is a mixture of being strict on the one hand and loving on the other that is the key to a good prison.

Imran Hussain: Does the Minister agree with his party’s former long-serving Secretary  of State, Sir Malcolm Rifkind—a self-confessed true believer in privatisation—who wrote recently in the Financial Times:
“The physical deprivation of a citizen’s liberty should not be the responsibility of a private company or of its employees.”
Does the Minister accept that the renationalisation of HMP Birmingham heralds the end of his Government’s failed prison privatisation agenda?

Rory Stewart: I respectfully disagree with Sir Malcolm on this issue. It was absolutely right to take Birmingham back in hand, because that prison was not performing properly. On the other hand, the same company is running some very good prisons in Oakwood, Altcourse and Parc. It is doing good things on family work and on technology. Private sector prisons are often among the safer local prisons in terms of assaults per 1,000. We are not ideological on this. The private sector can certainly play a role.

Welfare Benefits: Legal Advice

Paul Blomfield: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of people able to access early legal advice for welfare benefits cases.

Stephen Morgan: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of people able to access early legal advice for welfare benefits cases.

Lucy Frazer: In the most recent Legal Aid Agency civil tender, the number of offices providing legal aid services on welfare benefits increased by 188%. In February, we set out our legal support action plan, which focused on the importance of early legal support. We will be establishing a number of pilots in a range of areas of law to see how best we can support those in need. It is critical that welfare decisions are made right the first time, and we are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to help ensure that.

Paul Blomfield: I thank the Minister for that answer, but she will know that the number of people receiving legal aid to challenge benefit decisions fell from more than 91,000 in 2012-13 to fewer than 500 five years later, which was clearly the Government’s plan. The Department’s own figures show that while 28% of unrepresented claimants are successful on appeal, that figure jumps to 90% for those who have legal representation, so literally tens of thousands of people have lost out on moneys to which they were entitled. Does she agree that the Government should consider restoring legal aid for social security appeals, so that claimants can get the support they need to win the money they deserve?

Lucy Frazer: Legal aid is available in welfare cases on points of law to the upper tribunal and the higher courts. A wide variety of considerable support is also available from some fantastic third sector organisations. I visited a number of them recently, and they are doing an excellent job. As I mentioned, we are also looking in our legal aid action plan at how we can provide people with support early on in a variety of areas, which may include this area.

Stephen Morgan: Recent BBC research found that 1 million people live in areas with no legal aid provision for housing, with a further 15 million in areas with just one provider. Does the Minister not agree that only rogue landlords benefit from this situation?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Gentleman mentions housing. It is right that, across the country, some areas are quite sparsely populated, but people can always get advice on the telephone gateway. There are 134 housing and debt procurement areas, and as of 31 March 2019, there is at least one provider offering housing and debt services in all but five procurement areas. The Legal Aid Agency recently concluded a procurement process, and services in three of those areas will commence on 1 May. The agency is considering how to procure provision in the remaining two.

Richard Burgon: Government cuts to legal aid have left tens of thousands of welfare benefit claimants without the ability to appeal flawed DWP decisions. We continue to see harrowing stories of those who have suffered after such poor decisions. Those cuts left tens of thousands of tenants unable to take on lousy landlords, and left migrants unable to fight back against the Conservative party’s hostile environment. Can the Minister explain why these vulnerable people are far too easily cast aside, while the private companies failing in our prison, probation and courts systems are too readily bailed out? Does this not sum up in whose interests the Conservative party governs?

Lucy Frazer: This party and this Government would like to support all people who need support, but we need to provide it in a way that is efficient, provides a good service and uses taxpayers’ money well. That is why we set out in our legal aid support strategy a variety of pilots that we will hold to help people in a variety of areas of law—housing, immigration—and all these can be bid for. We are putting forward £5 million for people to develop and put in place technology provision, face-to-face support and other support for legal aid.

Richard Burgon: It is just not good enough because all too often the Government spin against legal aid, with talk of fat cat lawyers and unmeritorious claims, but the latest figures show that the number of not-for-profit providers, such as law centres, has fallen by nearly two thirds under this Government. Will the Minister follow Labour’s lead and commit to funding a new generation of social welfare lawyers that can empower communities to battle against injustice and a new generation of law centres that can empower people to fight back against cruel Government policies?

Lucy Frazer: While the professions and those who provide support are incredibly important—that is why, as I mentioned earlier, we have put £23 million more into criminal legal aid professionals—we would like to focus on helping those who need that support. That is why we are focusing on our £5 million innovation fund to find out what sort of support people need and how best to provide that support. We recommend and hope to support bids from legal advice centres as well as from professionals.

Youth Justice System

Nigel Huddleston: What steps he is taking to reform the youth justice system.

Edward Argar: Significant reform has been undertaken since 2010, and we remain committed to driving further   improvements. While fewer young people are committing crimes for the first time, with an 86% reduction in the number of young people entering the youth justice system for the first time, we still have more to do to break the cycle of reoffending. Working with youth offending teams in partnership is central to prevention, but for those who end up in custody, we believe our reforms to move to a secure school model will play a key role in reducing further offending.

Nigel Huddleston: The recent increase in knife crime has highlighted the very young age at which some of our most vulnerable young people get involved in crime. What steps is the Department taking to divert young people away from offending and reoffending?

Edward Argar: We work very closely with youth offending teams and youth offending services run by local authorities to help with that prevention. I pay tribute particularly to the team in Lewisham, whom I was lucky enough to visit the other day. We also work closely with the Department for Education on exclusions and the role they can play in causing offending behaviour.

Seema Malhotra: Feltham young offenders institution has had a difficult recent history and problems with sustainability of management. Following the recent attack on prison officers, I am grateful to the Minister for how quickly the management, the Prison Officers Association and the Department responded.
It is increasingly clear that the growing violence to which young inmates are subject, and which they experience prior to prison, is presenting new challenges. Will the Minister join me in welcoming new projects that use sport—such as Tough Cricket in Feltham, which works with faith communities—to support young offenders in more positive activity and help to develop an alternative set of values?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work following the incidents of violence that she has mentioned. Once again, I thank the Prison Officers Association for its constructive engagement, and our thoughts are with the welfare of the injured staff. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of sport as one of the positive ways we can divert young people away from violence and offending behaviour.

Anne Main: Too many young people who get involved in crime have been failed by the education system or have special educational needs, which often go undiagnosed or are not coped with well by schools. What more can be done to ensure that young people do not fall foul of the system and end up with very few qualifications and very little hope for the future?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Central to tackling the problem is partnership working, not only with youth offending teams but with colleagues in the educational sphere. We are fully engaged with Edward Timpson’s review of exclusions, and we are working very closely with the Department for Education on matters such as speech and language therapy, learning disabilities and other factors that can play a part.

Jim Shannon: The age and maturity of children is so important. The age of criminal responsibility here is 10 years, which is low; it is 14 years in Germany and 15 years in Italy. There was a 60% increase in the number of young offenders between 1996 and 2004. What has been done to reduce the number of young offenders?

Edward Argar: We have worked extremely hard across the Government, and with local authorities and other state and charity agencies, to drive down the level of offending. We have seen an 86% reduction in the number of young people coming into the criminal justice system for the first time, but there is more to do to break the cycle of reoffending for those who are already in the system, and that is what we are focused on.

Housing Cases: Legal Advice

Bambos Charalambous: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of people able to access early legal advice for housing cases.

Lucy Frazer: Legal aid is available when someone is at risk of losing their home or seeking to address safety concerns that pose a serious risk of harm to the person or their family. In 2017-18, the Legal Aid Agency spent £28 million on housing matters, including £9 million on legal help for housing. We recognise that early support may well be helpful, and I have mentioned already a number of pilots and an innovation fund. We will also be piloting face-to-face advice in an area of social welfare law, which may possibly be in housing.

Bambos Charalambous: Labour has committed to restoring legal aid funding for early legal advice for housing, welfare benefits appeals and family law cases, helping hundreds of thousands of people. Why have the Government refused to do the same, despite evidence that to do so would actually save them money?

Lucy Frazer: There is already funding available, as I have mentioned. In 2017-18, we also spent £3.6 million on the housing possession court duty scheme—in other words, on-the-day advice. The Government want to ensure that people are helped early on, but also that we provide advice in the best way possible. That is why instead of just ploughing taxpayers’ money back into traditional legal aid, we want to evaluate many different forms of provision of early legal support and see which is the best, and then we will take a decision on what support we want to give.

Jim Cunningham: The Minister may well say that, but thousands of families up and down the country rely on citizens advice bureaux and law centres for help with a wide variety of problems. Even refugees rely on those centres. What is she going to do about properly funding those organisations? They cannot wait around for some Government review that might take place in the future. Will she deal with the matter urgently?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Gentleman mentioned immigration, and people can already get legal aid for asylum cases. We are committed to ensuring that people know when legal aid is available to them. We are going  to advertise when it is possible and undertake a programme to ensure that people know when legal aid can be claimed. In other areas where it is currently out of scope, we want to ensure that we provide it in the best way possible. In relation to housing advice, I should also mention that people can always get advice on the telephone gateway.

Leaving the EU: Legal System

Gavin Newlands: What steps the Government plan to take to ensure that the UK legal system operates effectively after the UK leaves the EU.

David Gauke: The UK and the EU have agreed the terms of an implementation period. If Parliament is able to support a deal, common rules will remain in place during that period. That will provide certainty to businesses and citizens. The UK and EU have also committed to explore a new agreement on family judicial co-operation and other related matters; ambitious arrangements for services and investment, including legal services; and a future security partnership. My Department continues to work to ensure we are in the best position to negotiate our priorities.

Gavin Newlands: The former Brexit Minister, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said at the Dispatch Box that a no-deal Brexit
“would not result in a reduction in mutual capability”—[Official Report, 20 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 1077]—
on security and law enforcement co-operation.
However, the Solicitor General, when giving evidence to the Justice Committee, said:
“A no deal is deeply suboptimal when it comes to criminal justice”
and that
“we would lose the European arrest warrant”,
which
“raises all sorts of questions of delay and, frankly, potential denial of justice”.
Will the Justice Secretary tell me which Minister’s version of the post-Brexit future is accurate?

David Gauke: We are very clear that the best way forward is to reach a deal. That is what the Government are endeavouring to achieve and support from across the House would be quite helpful in delivering that.

Bob Neill: The Solicitor General’s evidence to the Justice Committee was indeed crystal clear. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is critical for civil justice co-operation that there should be a deal? None of the ambitious objectives for future collaboration would work if there is no deal. For example, mutual recognition and enforceability of judgments in civil and family law cases would fall away immediately in the event of no deal.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to highlight these issues. We have made progress in our negotiations, particularly in the context of family law. It is to the advantage of citizens in the UK and the EU that a deal is reached, which will enable us to enforce judgments in  this area. Our ambitions are to go further and, in terms of the future framework, to make further progress on civil judicial co-operation.

Chris Bryant: In thousands of instances, we are not able to deliver justice in this country unless we have a proper extradition agreement with other countries in the European Union. As I understand it, even if the withdrawal agreement were to go forward at some point, we will still have to operate as a third party outside the European arrest warrant. Relying on the 1957 treaties will not be enough, so what plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure we are able to maintain a proper extradition arrangement with other countries in the European Union?

David Gauke: The hon. Member is correct to say that on leaving the European Union we will not have access to the European arrest warrant. We would wish to be able to do so, but there are difficulties. For example, Germany has a constitutional bar in this area. The Home Office continues to work with EU member states to try to find a way in which we can have as effective extradition and arrest warrant arrangements as possible.

Joanna Cherry: Justice issues are, of course, largely devolved. EU initiatives such as Eurojust and the European arrest warrant are well utilised by Scottish prosecutors and are hugely valued by them. In the current Brexit talks between the UK Government and the Labour party, will the Secretary of State confirm what proposals regarding justice have been discussed and if the Scottish Government have been or will be consulted on these or any forthcoming proposals that may result from the talks between the Tories and the Labour party?

David Gauke: I am not going to comment specifically on those discussions. What I would say in the context  of no-deal preparations is that, as I understand it, the Scottish Government have not allocated any of the money given to them for no-deal preparation on justice matters. Certainly, when it comes to the United Kingdom, we are doing everything we can to prepare for every eventuality.

Joanna Cherry: I can assure the Secretary of State that the Scottish Government’s no-deal planning is well advanced. The Justice Secretary’s Government recently opted into the Eurojust regulation. Eurojust plays a vital role in the fight against serious organised crime, particularly terrorism but also cyber-crime and child pornography. His Department said that opting in was necessary to ensure that the UK continues to work in line with our European partners in the lead-up to exit day and during the transition period. Will he tell us how many more justice opt-ins has he planned before Brexit takes place and will they feature in the Tory manifesto for the EU Parliament elections?

David Gauke: What I say to the hon. and learned Lady is that we want to work in a pragmatic way with the European Union, so that as we leave the EU, we continue to co-operate wherever we can to our mutual benefit. That does require us to reach a deal.

Access to Justice: Criminal Case Delays

Kate Green: What assessment he has made of the effect of delays in progressing criminal cases in the courts on access to justice.

Lucy Frazer: Unnecessary delays can always cause distress for all parties. Some cases are moving more quickly through the criminal courts, but due to the complexity of cases, impacts on the time that they take to reach courts are being realised. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are driving change across the system through the national disclosure improvement plan, and we are working to reduce delays and improve the way cases are progressed through the system through better case management and transforming summary justice.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and I am aware of the work that is being done to improve disclosure processes, which both the Law Society and my local police tell me are still contributing to delayed and, in some cases, collapsed trials. What is her view of the Law Society’s suggestion that different disclosure rules should apply in the magistrates courts and Crown courts, where the nature of the cases and the amount of disclosed but unused material differ greatly?

Lucy Frazer: Of course, the Attorney General has done a review in relation to disclosure more broadly. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss any ideas that she would like to put forward on those matters.

Yasmin Qureshi: Since 2016, payments to consultancies by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service have shot up from £3 million to £20 million. The Government appear to think that expensive private consultants are the solution to all their problems, even in the face of spiralling costs. Does the Minister really believe that the way to increase access to justice is to hand over yet more public money to private consultants at a time when our courts are facing unprecedented cuts?

Lucy Frazer: We are in the process of a £1 billion court programme—one of the most ambitious across the world in relation to how we transform our justice system—and it is appropriate that we get the best and right advice to manage that process. Sometimes we find that it is cheaper to instruct experts than it is to develop that expertise internally, so we use consultants where appropriate.

Enforcement Agents: Regulation

Emma Reynolds: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the regulation of enforcement agents.

Lucy Frazer: There is no excuse for aggressive tactics by bailiffs. I know that the hon. Lady has worked very hard to highlight the issues that have occurred in her constituency, and I was very grateful for her contribution   to a recent Westminster Hall debate. She will know that we have undertaken a call for evidence, which addresses the regulation of the industry. Recently, we were very pleased to see the report of the Justice Committee, and we will respond both to the call for evidence and the Justice Committee’s report in the summer.

Emma Reynolds: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is unacceptable that many people, including the disabled constituent of mine she referred to, have suffered at the hands of aggressive bailiffs, who seem to think that they are above the law. Debt collectors and debt advice charities are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, but bailiffs are an anomaly in all this and do not have independent regulation. I hear what she says about the timetable, but when the Government do respond to the call for evidence and the Justice Committee report, will that include plans for an independent regulator of bailiffs?

Lucy Frazer: As the hon. Lady will know, regulation is one of the questions that we are asking in the call for evidence. We will look at the evidence—we have had quite a lot of evidence submitted—and we will be responding to that point about regulation. The Justice Committee made a number of interesting recommendations and put forward some proposals, and we will of course look at those in due course as well.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I rise as co-chair of the justice unions cross-party group. The number of public sector civilian enforcement officers is less than half what it was four years ago, while private bailiff firms receive millions from the taxpayer every year, and the Government recently admitted wasting almost half a million pounds on their cancelled private bailiff procurement process. When will they admit that privatisation is not worth it and invest instead in public staff?

Lucy Frazer: Sometimes it is appropriate for the public sector to provide services; sometimes the private sector does it just as well, and sometimes better. It is appropriate to ensure that in all services we get the best service, not dictate who provides those services.

Living Wage

Diana R. Johnson: If he will make it his policy to pay officials in his Department the living wage.

Rory Stewart: We believe very strongly that we need to both provide decent wages for people and grow the economy and make sure we have employment, which is why we have undertaken to provide a living wage to all our direct employees, and also to our third-party employees, but we have done so—and this is where I suspect the disagreement between me and the hon. Lady lies—at a level that has led to us having the highest rates of employment on record.

Diana R. Johnson: Just to be clear, will the Minister state that the people who clean his offices and the security guards who keep him safe in his role as a Minister will receive the living wage, meaning that his Department’s name, the Ministry of Justice, is accurate?

Rory Stewart: Yes, I absolutely can confirm that. In April, their wages will go from £7.83 to £8.21 an hour, which is the national living wage.

Prison Officer Safety

Daniel Kawczynski: What progress he has made on improving the safety of prison officers.

Rory Stewart: Protecting our prison officers is vital to having safe prisons. In order to do this, we have doubled the maximum sentence for assaulting a prison officer; we are introducing body-worn cameras; we are rolling out PAVA spray; and we are ensuring, through the training and support we provide for prison officers and the work we do on drugs, that we keep our prisons safe.

Daniel Kawczynski: A key factor in the safety of prison officers is the number of these professionals in each prison. In an earlier response, the Minister said that the number was at a higher level than in any year since 2012. What is the number of prison officers at the moment and what plans does he have to increase the number of these professionals over the next 12 months?

Rory Stewart: We now have 4,300 additional prison officers, which is the highest level since 2012.

David Hanson: What about 2010?

Rory Stewart: We have fewer officers than in 2010. There was a reduction from 2010 to 2012, but we have now turned that around, with the 4,300 extra officers, meaning we can now roll out the key worker programme, which is central, as it means we have the ratios we need to have one prison officer allied with four prisoners to make sure we deliver the work on rehabilitation.

Catherine West: The number of officers is only one part of the equation. Will the Minister increase the almost poverty pay of those in the lowest-paid jobs in the Prison Service and the courts?

Rory Stewart: We have been looking at this very carefully, and the public sector pay review body is currently gathering evidence on the situation. We owe a huge debt of obligation to our prison officers and we have to think about their salaries. We also have to balance that with making sure our resources go into improving the physical fabric of these buildings and having the right security infrastructure and the right programming in place. Looking at the resources as a whole, we think we have got the balance right, but we will listen to the public sector pay review body.

Child Sexual Abuse Victims

Andrew Griffiths: What steps he is taking to ensure that the criminal justice system adequately supports victims of child sexual abuse.

Edward Argar: We are determined to ensure that support is in place for all victims of child sexual abuse. In particular, a range of special measures is available in court cases to assist and support victims of child sexual  abuse to give their best evidence in criminal proceedings, including the provision of evidence via video links, recorded evidence-in-chief, screens around the witness box and access to an independent sexual violence adviser.

Andrew Griffiths: I recognise the good work done to support victims of child sexual abuse, but access to compensation is key to that. The Minister will know that in 2017, of the 6,861 cases in which someone was found guilty of child sexual abuse, in only 26 was a criminal compensation order awarded. That is 0.4%. Will he work with me and others in the House to ensure we get victims of child sexual abuse the compensation they deserve?

Edward Argar: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the very powerful and, indeed, very personal speech that he made recently when presenting a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject. I should be happy to meet him, with my officials, to discuss this further.

Louise Haigh: Given that so many victims of child sexual abuse have spoken out about their horrendous experiences through the family courts, what consideration is being given to a full inquiry into the treatment in those courts of women and girls who have suffered domestic abuse and violence?

Edward Argar: I know that the hon. Lady speaks about this subject with passion and knowledge, and that she has championed a number of those who have suffered in the past. She has highlighted a very important point. As she will know, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and I—along with members of the judiciary and others—are looking closely into what can be done to ensure that the family courts themselves continue to ensure that the voices of victims of child sexual abuse are heard, and that they are responded to appropriately.

Topical Questions

Marsha de Cordova: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Gauke: On 12 April, the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 came into effect. It criminalises the reprehensible behaviour known as upskirting. The offences specified in the Act are framed in clear and focused terms to ensure that that disturbing practice is tackled robustly wherever it occurs, so that victims can be confident that their complaints will be taken seriously. I thank Gina Martin for leading the campaign, and I thank all Members on both sides of the House who supported this law. Together, we have sent a clear message to those who think that they can get away with such invasive and unacceptable behaviour: it will not be tolerated.

Marsha de Cordova: A staggering 72% of decisions on personal independence payments and 65% of decisions on employment and support allowance are overturned in the first-tier tribunal. That means that not only are ill and disabled people having to fight for the social security support to which they are entitled, but a great deal of money is being wasted on the administration of appeal  tribunals. May I ask the Secretary of State how much is being spent on the administration of PIP and ESA tribunals? If those figures are not recorded, will he agree to start producing them?

David Gauke: If I remember correctly, only 8% of awards are challenged in tribunals. As for the total cost, I will happily write to the hon. Lady providing the details.

Tom Pursglove: What steps is the Minister taking across Government to spread the successful best practice of organisations such as Care after Combat, which is doing brilliant work with veterans in prisons and driving down reoffending?

Edward Argar: I know that my hon. Friend is a committed supporter of Care after Combat. Indeed, so committed is he that he will be running the London marathon next weekend in aid of the organisation, and I gather that all sponsorship is welcome.
As a member of the ministerial covenant and veterans board, I am happy to confirm that the Government’s new strategy refers explicitly to veterans in the justice system. We incorporate a wide range of military and non-military charities in our work on prisons and probation, including SSAFA, the Royal British Legion and, of course, Care after Combat, and we encourage the sharing of best practice on what works.

Richard Burgon: Climate change is now receiving the public attention that it merits. Greta Thunberg is in the House today, and my party pays tribute to her work. All too often, however, our justice system restricts the ability of citizens to take legal action against environmentally damaging decisions. Last month, the United Nations criticised the Government’s failure to meet their international obligations relating to access to justice in environmental matters.
Labour’s 2017 manifesto proposed the establishment of a new type of environmental tribunal with simplified procedures so that citizens would have alternatives to prohibitively expensive judicial reviews. Will the Government follow Labour’s lead, and commit themselves to the establishment of a tribunal that would empower people to use our legal system to protect our shared environment?

David Gauke: I am not sure that setting up a new tribunal is necessarily the right response to this particular issue, but of course we want to do everything we can to ensure that the law—including the Government’s ambitious climate change policies—is properly enforced.

Maria Caulfield: Given that the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2018 became law last year to block mobile phone signals in prisons, could the Minister update us on the progress that has been made on introducing the technology across the prisons estate?

David Gauke: I thank my hon. Friend for the work she did in bringing the Bill through and turning it into an Act. It is an important piece of legislation, which extends our powers to work alongside network providers. We are taking significant steps in dealing with the security threat posed by mobile phones. We have to prevent them from getting into prisons. We have to use detection  methods to find them and stop them working, and we are making advances on that. We also need to exploit the data that is held on them.

Tom Brake: I went to prison last week—to Downview Prison, which is a women’s prison—for the Sycamore Tree course on restorative justice. Does the Minister agree that restorative justice programmes of this nature, and also those run by the Chris Donovan Trust, can have a real impact on reoffending rates and provide some comfort to victims who want to go on them by helping them to recover from a crime?

Edward Argar: Having also recently visited Downview, I know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about, and I fully agree that restorative justice and the work of charities such as the Sycamore Tree project can have a vital role to play in making our prisons safer and more rehabilitative. Restorative approaches are already used across the youth estate and, as the right hon. Gentleman highlighted, in a number of other prisons. They have real benefits, in terms of both defusing conflict and repairing harm after an incident in prison.

Fiona Bruce: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the fact that a family impact test on the Government’s proposed divorce law changes has been published, but what is the justification for the Government cherry-picking not just public opinion, which, according to the responses to their own consultation, is 80% against the proposed changes, but the evidence they rely on, with Ministers seeming to ignore evidence that there will be an immediate spike in divorce rates, which will impact negatively on the families involved?

David Gauke: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend on this point. It is true that there was a surge of submissions to our consultation in the last couple of weeks, but the fact is that a YouGov poll on the day the proposals were set out suggested 73% support for them. Indeed, we have had support from the Law Society, Resolution, the Family Law Bar Association, Sir Paul Coleridge—the chair of the Marriage Foundation—Relate and National Family Mediation. This reform will help families and ensure that the divorce process is less acrimonious.

Christine Jardine: Do the Government have any plans to change the legal system to protect against gender targeting of advertising towards children and teenagers?

David Gauke: We will certainly look at any proposals on this front. We do not, at the moment, have any plans, but I will certainly look at any proposals the hon. Lady might have.

Kirstene Hair: I warmly welcome the commitment by the UK Government to recruit 2,500 more prison officers, because prison officers in Scotland have spoken out about the fact that the system there is at breaking point. Rising numbers have led to overcrowding in my local prison, HMP Perth, which was recently reported to rely heavily on inexperienced agency and bank nurses due to staffing shortages. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government need to make a similar commitment to restore order in our prison service?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is a doughty defender of the interests of her constituents. As she points out, this is a matter for the Scottish Government, but I am more than happy to share our experience with the Scottish Government if that would be helpful.

Alex Norris: Will Ministers make a commitment today that the Domestic Abuse Bill will include guaranteed access to special measures in courts for survivors of domestic abuse and that that will apply equally across all our court systems and our entire courts estate?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he will be aware, we have brought forward the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which we are currently considering in the Joint Committee. We would very much welcome any reflections he has as part of that process before we draft definitive legislation to bring forward to the House.

Gordon Henderson: During an earlier answer, my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister mentioned the roll-out of PAVA spray. When will it be completed?

Rory Stewart: I am delighted to be able to remind the House that PAVA spray is an incapacitating spray and that it can be safer, when dealing with acts of extreme violence, to use a spray rather than pulling out a baton or rolling around with someone on the ground. We need to use these sprays in a moderate, controlled fashion, but they can reduce extreme violence in prisons and protect our prison officers, so we are proud to be rolling them out.

Stephen Hepburn: In South Tyneside, disabled claimants are having to wait over 12 months for a tribunal, and 80% of those appeals are successful. What discussions have the Minister and the Department had with the Department for Work and Pensions about this flawed decision making?

Lucy Frazer: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I met the previous Minister for Disabled People twice to talk about how the DWP can get decisions right first time, and I have already spoken to the new Minister to follow up on those discussions. There were 3.8 million decisions made on the personal independence payment in the last year, of which only 10% were appealed and only 5% overturned. However, it is absolutely fundamental that the decisions should be got right first time and that only those that are more questionable should come through the system.

Edward Leigh: rose—

John Bercow: Ah, a Lincolnshire knight, and an illustrious member of the Privy Council to boot—we are doubly blessed. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

Edward Leigh: Having pissed off half our supporters by botching Brexit, why are we now irritating the other half with an extreme liberal social agenda? Every single study, including the Harvard Law reform and the Margaret Brinig studies, shows that it is poor, vulnerable and   dispossessed children who suffer most from divorce. Will my right hon. Friend at least accept that if he makes something easier, it will happen more often?

David Gauke: The evidence on no-fault divorce is that in a steady state there is not a higher rate of divorce than otherwise. It is also the case that the current fault-based approach to divorce results in divorces that are going to happen anyway being more acrimonious than they would otherwise have been. That is why I believe that it is right that we make this reform.

Diana R. Johnson: The Health Minister will soon be meeting the parents in Hull affected by the baby ashes scandal, including mothers who do not know how their babies’ bodies were transported from hospital with no coffin, no funeral director and no funeral service for the family. Does this not yet again show the need for the local independent inquiry that is still being sought by those parents, and was it not unwise for the Ministry of Justice to accept the assurances of Hull City Council that the parents’ concerns had all been dealt with, without asking the parents?

David Gauke: The hon. Lady raises an important and sensitive point, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the issue.

Robert Courts: Education is at the very heart of rehabilitation. What are Ministers doing to ensure that people have access to education and the jobs they need when they leave prison?

Rory Stewart: The big change that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to ensure that education in prison is linked to employment. This involves talking to the local job market, ensuring that we provide the skills that match that market and, above all, ensuring that we have safe, decent prisons so that we can remove the prisoners from their cells and into work and education so that we can get them into jobs. That reduces reoffending by an average of 7%.

David Hanson: How are we getting on with securing the 26 prisoner transfer agreements that are currently in place with the European Union to ensure that they are in place at the end of this year?

Rory Stewart: I am delighted that Labour Members are working with us to try to get a good Brexit deal in place, and if we can get such a deal, we will be able to continue through the transition period. In a no-deal situation, however, it will become significantly more difficult because we will have to fall back on older and more cumbersome ways of moving prisoners. That would not be good for us or for Europe.

Kevin Hollinrake: Despite the wilful destruction of thousands of small businesses by their own bank, no senior executive has ever been held to account. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s proposals to bring forward legislation to make failure to prevent fraud a corporate criminal offence?

Lucy Frazer: Of course, when people suffer economic crime it is as devastating for them as it is with any other crime. As my hon. Friend will know, we put out a call for evidence and we are looking carefully at the responses across the Departments. We will be responding in due course.

Paula Sherriff: The number of recorded child sexual abuse offences increased by 178% between March 2007 and March 2017. Can the Minister explain how his Government’s substantial cuts to the MOJ, the CPS and, of course, the police have helped victims achieve justice?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I know that she has a sustained interest in this area. She will be aware that we increased funding for specialist rape and sexual abuse support services, including for child sexual abuse, from April this year. That means a 10% increase in funding, a move to three-year rather than annual settlements, and support for 96 centres across England and Wales—the highest number that the MOJ has ever funded—ensuring that support services are available in each of the police and crime commissioner areas.

Bob Neill: The law regarding the sentencing of offenders has grown piecemeal and become ever more complex, even for experienced judges and practitioners. Bearing that in mind and noting that comparatively uncontroversial legislation is being sought for a future Queen’s Speech, would not paving legislation for the Law Commission’s sentencing code consolidation Bill absolutely fit the bill?

David Gauke: The Chair of the Justice Committee makes a good point. There is cross-party support on the matter, and I hope that we can make progress in the not-too-distant future.

Liz McInnes: In 2010, the then Secretary of State for Justice said that he wanted to examine what could be done to use technology more effectively so that fewer people have physically to attend court for routine purposes. Nine years on, however, this Government have admitted to not collecting information on how many times video links break down; nor have they published the business case for their modernisation programme. Will Ministers commit to undertaking that research before proceeding with any more closures or cuts to our courts?

Lucy Frazer: There are a number of developments relating to the use of technology to ensure that people do not have to attend court or fill in lengthy, unwieldy documentation. People can now apply for divorce and for probate online, and users can be updated about social security claims through their mobile phone. We piloted online tax tribunal hearings, which were extremely effective, and we are now piloting further video hearings in the civil courts.

Philip Hollobone: Of the 9,000 foreign national prisoners in our jails, 760 are from Albania. What are we doing to negotiate a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement with Albania?

Rory Stewart: My hon. Friend has raised this matter several times, and I recently met with the Albanian Minister of Justice. It is difficult to return prisoners to Albania. We are ahead of the Italians and the Greeks, but we still have a lot more to do. The problem is that   the host country needs to receive these prisoners, so we cannot transfer prisoners in a compulsory fashion. I assure my hon. Friend, because he has asked this question in the past, that a no-deal Brexit will make such prisoner transfers not easier, but more difficult.

Stephanie Peacock: Three of the four men convicted of killing my constituent Jacqueline Wileman were on probation at the time of her death. Does the Minister recognise that that demonstrates the devastating failure of the privatised probation system? Will he meet with me to discuss both the case and how to prevent similar deaths, including by removing the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving?

Rory Stewart: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her campaigning on this issue. This was a tragic case involving death by dangerous driving, and the individuals have now received sentences of between 10 and 13 and a half years for the crime. We fully support the idea that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased up to a life sentence, but we still need to maintain a basic distinction in law between people who intend to commit murder and people whose actions lead to the horrible situation of loss of life through gross negligence and carelessness. We support the idea, and I will meet the hon. Lady.

Nigel Huddleston: I have met many excellent prison officers who serve at HMP Long Lartin in my constituency and elsewhere, but way too many of them seem to leave to pursue careers elsewhere. What more can be done to retain more prison officers?

Rory Stewart: In order to retain people in the job, we need to make sure that we have the right salary rates and that our prisons are safer. However, we also need to make sure that people feel motivated and that their morale is good, which is one of the reasons why the training and support packages we have introduced should transform retention rates for prison staff.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Two Members have been standing for some time, and I am keen to accommodate them. I feel sure they will agree that a sentence each seems fair.

Alison Thewliss: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Street & Arrow is a social enterprise street food project and is part of Scotland’s violence reduction unit. It hires people with convictions for 12 months, mentors them and provides them with wraparound support. Does the Minister agree that such support is the best way to reduce reoffending?

Rory Stewart: Obviously I must pay tribute to the extraordinary achievements, particularly in Glasgow, on reducing violence. On my recent visit to the United States, I also picked up things we could do to work with ex-gang members to interrupt the cycle of violence and have a rapid impact, but we can certainly learn from Scotland on this issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We must move on.

CLIMATE ACTION AND EXTINCTION REBELLION

John Bercow: Before I call the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) to ask his urgent question, I want, I hope on behalf of all colleagues across the House, to welcome Greta Thunberg, an enthusiastic and dedicated environmental campaigner who is with us today.
I, as Speaker, am very conscious that there are different views on these matters and different views on the matter of tactics in campaigning, but I think, across the House, we all believe in encouraging young people to stand up and speak up, to say what they think and to make their concerns known, so it was a pleasure for me, among other colleagues, to welcome Greta this morning. Greta, it was a pleasure to meet you, and I hope you enjoy listening to these exchanges.

Ed Miliband: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth if she will make a statement on climate action and Extinction Rebellion.

Claire Perry: I hope not to try the patience of the House—I will be making a further statement on this topic later this afternoon—but I want to take this opportunity to join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming Ms Thunberg and her team to the United Kingdom Parliament. We tried very hard to meet her personally but, despite the best efforts of our diaries, we could not do it. I know she has met many Members of the House of Commons today, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Watching the protests over the past few days, both here and globally, has raised slightly mixed emotions in me. First, there is excitement that the conversations that many of us were having about climate change 30 years ago are finally moving from niche to mainstream. The question is not “Why act?” but “How fast can we act?”
Secondly, we completely understand the brilliant scientific evidence base, the motivation and the commitment that are driving people across the world to make their views known, but I worry that many of the messages we are hearing ignore the progress that is being made and, as such, make people fearful for the future, rather than hopeful.
Here in the UK, thanks to excellent cross-party working, we were the first country in the world to pass a climate change Act. We have led the world in reducing the carbon intensity of our economy over the past 40 years. We have made huge progress on plastics-free activity. Last month, renewables contributed to over 40% of our electricity supply. In fact, just this last weekend we had our longest ever period of no coal contributing to electricity generation in the UK; and we now have more than 400,000 people working in the low-carbon economy.
Of course we share the desire to raise this country’s ambition, which is why we asked our independent Committee on Climate Change to advise us on how best to reach our net-zero target—we were the first industrialised country to ask for that advice. I am also pleased to welcome the cross-party support for our bid to host the crucial United Nations climate change talks next year.
I have to say that, although the protests have been respectful and good natured, they have caused disruption for many hundreds of thousands of hard-working Londoners, and they have required a heavy policing presence. I thank the police—I think we should all agree on that—for their professionalism and for their proportionate response, especially over the holiday weekend.
We know we need to continue and accelerate the decarbonisation of our economy, across all aspects of activity, and crucially to help other countries around the world, especially those not at the same stage of economic development as us. That is going to require a broad-based, engaged, informed debate to deliver the low-carbon progress we need; this must be fair, just and progressive, and able to be shared. I am pleased to say that our progress to date has been supported by all political parties, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his great leadership and continued support in this area. Our work has been supported by all political parties in the UK, and I hope we can continue to work together to drive the changes we must make in order to secure our future. We have to secure the future of planet A, because there is no planet B.

Ed Miliband: I thank the Minister for her reply.
People can believe that the tactics of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong—the Minister obviously believes they are wrong—but the demonstrators are certainly not wrong about the failure of politics to do anything like what is necessary to fight climate change: they are right. She said in her reply that we have made progress as a country, and I thank her for what she said about me, but the truth is that the planet is warming far faster than we are acting. Even the path-breaking Paris commitments will take us way beyond the disaster of 2°C of warming, as the Minister knows. The truth is that climate change is not some theoretical future prospect; it is with us here and now, with wildfires, droughts and floods. We have been warned by the scientists: it will get far worse if we do not act with much greater urgency. In these circumstances, it is no wonder people are disrupting the traffic and schoolchildren are striking. The response from Government cannot simply be to restore order and say it is doing a good job. The only credible answer of democratic politics in response to these protests is to admit that we need to raise our game and show we can act.
May I therefore ask the Minister today to commit to the following four actions as a down-payment on what is necessary? First, will she seek to persuade the Prime Minister to declare a climate emergency, as many local authorities have done, in order to focus minds across Government on the centrality of this issue to every Department, not just hers? Goodness knows that is necessary, because we know from the figures that came out just before Easter that the Government are woefully behind in meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets covering the next decade.
Secondly, the Minister is to be commended for asking the Committee on Climate Change to recommend a date when the UK will need to hit zero emissions, which it will do next week, but these recommendations cannot be allowed to get buried in Whitehall. So will she now commit to responding formally to them before the summer recess? Only by Britain showing world leadership again, quickly, can we hope to persuade other countries to act.
Thirdly, will the Minister commit to working on the delivery of a British green new deal at scale, which could have the effect of giving work to hundreds of thousands of people across our country, for example, in retrofitting buildings, and showing beyond doubt that economic justice and climate justice go together?
Fourthly and finally, will she take up the idea of Extinction Rebellion and others to involve the public in these discussions about both the threat of climate change and the action necessary—and, yes, the trade-offs—with a process of citizen deliberation? For too long—this covers both parties—people have been shut out of the climate debate and made to feel powerless. That must change.
I wish to make one final point. Greta Thunberg, who is with us today in the Public Gallery, said this:
“I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”
She is right. If we do not act, people will say in the future, “You knew the facts, but you did not care enough.” We will be known as the generations with the knowledge of what was to come but without the will or imagination to prevent it. We will be condemned, and rightly so. The right response to rebellion on our streets is to produce a revolution in climate leadership, and the time for action is now.

Claire Perry: In the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks we hear the passion that he has bought to this portfolio for many years, and I share that passion. Let me correct him: I do not disagree with the protests. I disagree with some of the methods, but certainly not with the message. As I have said to him before, I think that just a few years previously he and I would have been out there ourselves carrying placards.
Let me pick up on the challenges the right hon. Gentleman talked about. He is right to acknowledge that the Government were bold to ask for advice on a net zero economy—we are the first industrialised economy to do so. I will consider that advice carefully and proportionally and, crucially, I will work out how we are going to pay for it. He will know from his time in his climate change role that the Committee on Climate Change was unable to recommend a net zero target when previously we asked for that advice, because the committee did not believe it could be done cost-effectively or, indeed, that we had the technology. It is right that we give that work the focus that it requires.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we need to take a whole-of-Government approach. I was really pleased to see the Chancellor stand up and make the first ever green financial statement, in which he brought forward some extremely ambitious programmes to ensure that from 2025 no new homes will be built in this country that rely on fossil-fuel heating.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the declaration of a climate emergency. The thing is, I do not know what that would entail. I could stand here and say, “I believe there is a climate emergency,” and he could say that, too. Many of our local councils, including my own council in Wiltshire, have done that. The question is: what are we going to do about it? That is why we should be proud of the fact that we have the most detailed proposals for how we will hit our carbon budgets.
I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point about carbon budgets in a moment, but he needs to look, as I am sure he has, at what other Governments have done. It is the easiest thing in the world for a politician to stand up and say, “I’m going to do this and I’m going to set these targets,” knowing that they will be dead and buried before the targets have to be met. The responsible thing to do is to put in place legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to bind every successive Minister who comes along to meet the budgets, or to explain why they are not met, and to hold every future Government’s feet to the fire—as he says, it often is a fire—in respect of how we deliver on our ambition.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about carbon budgets. He will know that we are not woefully far off: we are at 95% and 93% of the way to being where we need to be to meet the budgets that end in seven and 12 years. And that is without evening costing or calculating the carbon savings that we will have from the homes changes we have made. This is an ongoing process and we are absolutely committed to delivering.
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about citizens’ assemblies. The wonderful thing is that everybody can talk about this issue. A national conversation is now happening. We have to engage with citizens, businesses, politicians, local authorities, bill payers and taxpayers—with everybody—because there is not one single thing that will move the dial. We have to change everything, do it rapidly and do it in a way such that no future Government can wriggle out of their responsibilities.

John Redwood: In this policy area, it is most important that everything is based on the best possible science. I am sure we would all agree about that. What is the Government’s view on the likely changes in water-vapour levels and cloud cover, and on levels of solar radiation? Those are also important matters.

Claire Perry: My right hon. Friend is right. As a newly appointed fellow of the Royal Geographical Society—I had to get that in there—he will know that we have some of the best climate modelling in the world. The problem we have is that the planet is an unbelievably complicated ecosystem. We are finding some feedback loops that we did not even realise about: for example, what happens to the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica could have a meaningful impact on our sea levels immediately. We have the best scientific evidence base we have ever had. The 1.5° report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was based on the best peer-reviewed science the world has ever seen. We have the message from our scientists; we must now continue to act.

John Bercow: Who is the newly appointed fellow of the Royal Geographical Society—the right hon. Lady or the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)?

Claire Perry: That would be me, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Oh, many congratulations to the right hon. Lady.

Chris Bryant: She’s blowing her own trumpet!

John Bercow: Well, if she does not blow it, it may well be that nobody else will blow the trumpet. It is perfectly right that we offer her the warmest congratulations on that new acknowledgement.

Barry Gardiner: I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for his timely question.
The right to protest is one of the foundations of our freedom. From the Chartists to the suffragettes, and from the civil rights movement to the anti-apartheid campaign, all those victories were won by citizens uniting against injustice and making their voice heard. Extinction Rebellion and the school climate strikers are doing just that. I, too, thank the police for the way they have policed the demonstrations: on the whole, they have done so with good humour. I was delighted to meet the demonstrators at Marble Arch yesterday and I thank them for speaking the truth.
Many of us listened to Greta Thunberg earlier today. She spoke about truth—the truth that we are in the midst of an ecological and climate emergency. She also spoke about our refusal—our fear—to acknowledge the truth that stopping this catastrophe requires a complete rethink in the way we run our economy, so that GDP growth is no longer the touchstone. We are on track for catastrophic levels of global warming, yet in the UK we pride ourselves on the 40% reduction in emissions that we say we have achieved on 1990 levels, while achieving a 72% increase in GDP. But the truth is out there. Schoolchildren are teaching it to us. Those figures do not include aviation or shipping emissions. They do not include our imports, our exports and they have largely come from the clean power directive in the European Union, which forced us to announce an end to coal-fired power stations. That is why thousands of our schoolchildren are on climate strike: they know that we are not acting with the speed and seriousness that the climate emergency demands.
Therefore, I ask the Minister: will she listen to the voice of Extinction Rebellion and of our own children? I echo the call from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North: will she join my party in declaring a national environmental and climate emergency and commit to bringing forward the Government’s response to the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations, which will be published shortly, to achieve net zero urgently? Will she do more to engage with the public in tackling the climate crisis, because it is clear that our citizens need to be in the driving seat for a sustainable future? Will she work with Treasury colleagues and the Bank of England to address what Mark Carney has identified as climate-related financial risks and make the emissions curve and natural capital the key elements of our future economic viability? We know that, however disruptive the climate demonstrations may have been in this past few weeks to businesses, they pale into insignificance against the capacity of climate disasters to wipe out human prosperity and human life itself.

Claire Perry: I just want to pick up on a couple of factual points. First, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the right to protest. It is a wonderful, wonderful freedom that we have and one that we should use judiciously. I know that he and I have both done so.
On the point about coal, it is not the case that other countries across the EU are phasing out coal. In fact, when I was at the climate change talks in Bonn, it was shocking to see the barges of dirty Ruhr coal floating down the Rhine because Germany took an ideological decision to phase out nuclear power. For us to get to zero now—it will be zero completely by 2025—is a huge achievement for an island that is built on coal and surrounded by fish and that had 40% of its energy generation coming from coal in 2010 when I was elected. That has been done not by the climate directive, but by unilateral policy decisions taken by the coalition Government and continued by my Government. That is how we will continue to lead the world—by taking tough decisions, hopefully with cross-party support, to make the differences that we need but that we can then accelerate around the world. Our leadership on coal has enabled me and my counterpart in Canada to set up the global Powering Past Coal Alliance—an alliance of 80-plus countries, cities and companies that have all committed to phase out coal thanks to the UK’s leadership.
I also want to reassure the hon. Gentleman. He made a brilliant point about natural capital accounting, which will be formal Government policy by 2020. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Bank of England and the Governor, Mark Carney, who have identified the challenge for investors and companies, and indeed for regulators, if there is not proper accounting for climate risk disclosure—again, an area where we have continued to innovate and lead the world.
I am delighted to share many of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but I do believe fundamentally that a market-based economy that delivers rapidly reducing costs of technology and innovation—the sort of innovation that has seen the price of offshore wind tumble over the last two years—is the way to go. I will look with great interest at the advice that we get from the Committee on Climate Change and act as soon as is proportionate and possible.

Richard Benyon: It is not just the protesters on the streets or the children coming to our offices who are raising this matter; this issue is being talked of around kitchen tables, among families whom we represent. The worst way to reflect those concerns—whoever they are from—would be for our Opposition parties to say, “The Government are not doing enough” and for us to say, “Look at all the things we’re doing.” I therefore absolutely concur with the Minister’s cross-party consensus on this matter. Does she agree that we should applaud the fact that this country is not like the United States, where this is a polarised political issue? This is an issue on which we, as a Parliament working together, can actually move the dial. The Minister has made some really good points, as have the Opposition. Does she agree that, on this issue, we really can reflect the needs and wishes of the people out there through the consensual nature of our debate?

Claire Perry: I very much thank my right hon. Friend for his work as a Minister, particularly on waterways and rivers. This issue is not simply about the air or the biosphere. It is about the whole planet—all the ecosystems working together. He made an incredible amount of progress with that portfolio. Of course he is right. People look at us and see us filling this place with hot  air over the three-year forward look regarding our relationship with the European Union, and then they see this place when we are debating these portfolios. In my time as a Minister, this is the fullest I have ever seen the Chamber when we have debated these matters. [Interruption.] Well, there have been very few Members on the Opposition Benches previously as well. People are right to look at us and say, “What are you going to do, working together across parties?” and to ask what role organisations such as the Youth Parliament can play—that is, whether there are organisations and assemblies which already include young people that can help us to make progress with the issue.

Chris Law: We welcome the fact that the Extinction Rebellion protests have largely been peaceful and non-violent in nature, and that so many of those protesting have been young, concerned activists, including Greta Thunberg from Sweden and Holly Gillibrand, whom I met today and who has led climate action protests in her home town of Fort William in Scotland; I welcome both of them here today. Along with other young activists, they have travelled here to meet the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss how to respond to climate change. Given that the Prime Minister has yet to meet these young adults, will she take the time this week to discuss this vital issue with them? After all, it is our collective responsibility and the UK Government must show leadership.
Scotland continues to outperform the UK and is world-leading in its low-carbon transition, with figures showing that emissions in Scotland are down 49% since 1990, as opposed to 38% for the UK as a whole. Will the Minister join me in welcoming these figures from Scotland, and will she commit to increased, faster and deeper efforts by her Government to help the UK’s figures to come into line with Scotland’s?

Claire Perry: The good news is that all the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government have worked incredibly hard on the low-carbon transition. It is a joint project; we calculate on a joint account. Of course, the taxpayer subsidies that have gone into so much of the energy generation system, helping Scotland with its transition, have come from UK taxpayers and UK tax policy.
I cannot speak for the diary of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am always delighted to meet groups of people, as is the Environment Minister. As I have said, we worked really hard today to try to get our diaries to mesh with the plans of the groups coming here and we offered various meetings, but apparently they were not available at those times. It is a total pleasure to meet people to discuss these issues. Like so many other Members, I am sure, I only have to go home to hear my own children telling me what more we need to do and asking whether they should take part in the protests. I say to them, “Wouldn’t it just be easier to tell mum what you want over a cup of tea?” but it is more fun for them to protest. We genuinely have to listen and move on this issue, and we will continue to do so.

Rebecca Pow: It is a testament to my constituents—young, old, of no religion, of any religion, whatever shape and size—that they have come to me about the environment. This is an overridingly  important issue for everybody. Sustainability should be at the heart of every Government Department, and cross-party should be the name of the game. If we can do one really positive thing to reverse climate change, it will be to reduce our emissions to net zero, and to do so fast. I take my hat off to the Minister for going to the Committee on Climate Change and for asking for its advice on how we could possibly address this more quickly than our targets. The committee’s advice was that we could not do so by 2050. I am hopeful that it will change its mind. Will she please update us on that and will she tell us when aviation and shipping might be included, as they need to be?

Claire Perry: To answer in reverse order, there has been progress made on aviation and shipping. That continues to be an international challenge because flights and ships leave and take off from different places, but there is work accelerating on it, and indeed some investment going into low-carbon fuels, which could be hugely important. I will happily update the House when we have received the net zero report and talk about the various aspects in that. We are investing in the first net zero industrial cluster in the UK, with £170 million of funding from the industrial strategy challenge fund. As my hon. Friend has reminded me, it is not just the young who are protesting: one of the most effective and wide-scale campaigning organisations in the UK in this area is the Women’s Institute, which has over 9,000 climate ambassadors. This is a problem that affects all of us, and the solution will involve all of us.

Caroline Lucas: I thank Greta Thunberg and the climate strikers, and Extinction Rebellion, for showing more climate leadership on the streets than we often see in this Chamber. The Minister says that she does not know what a climate emergency looks like. It looks like doing what is scientifically necessary, not just what is deemed to be politically possible at the time. In that spirit, in the meeting this morning that unfortunately the Prime Minister could not clear her diary to make but all the Opposition leaders did, we agreed a number of proposals, including things like ongoing dialogue with the UK climate strikers and stress testing all new manifesto commitments to make sure that they do not exceed the 1.5° warming target. Will the Minister’s Government sign up to those practical proposals?

Claire Perry: I do not want to politicise diaries, because of course invitations were issued, as the hon. Lady is well aware, that could not be accepted. We are not going to go into that sort of political tit for tat that takes us down a rabbit hole of conflict that this situation does not need. I have debated with the hon. Lady many times, and I frequently pay tribute to her for her passion and commitment and leadership of her party, but just once—just once—she could stand up and acknowledge the fact that the country she is proud to represent has led the world—

Caroline Lucas: indicated dissent.

Claire Perry: She is shaking her head. She cannot even acknowledge that the UK has led the world in this particular area. If we cannot acknowledge our leadership, and celebrate that, how can we possibly hope to persuade  other countries that emit far more carbon than us, and have a far greater land area, that they should be making the changes that they also need to make?

Huw Merriman: While I have no time for those who deny climate change, I also have little time for those who deny that great progress has been made. If we have 40% of our electricity from renewables, which is up from 6% in 2010, is it not important that we listen to and work with our scientists and innovators who can improve this picture rather than just listening to those who lie down on the streets?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that this debate is about consumption emissions.  I will not take the House through the technicalities, but essentially there is an argument that we have exported much of our heavy energy-creating activities. It is also the case, as people will see if they peruse the base numbers, that our consumption emissions are down by 20% since, I believe, 1997. I will check those facts before the next statement. The whole world’s economic systems are changing. That is why the leadership that we display will help other countries to whom much of this activity has been transferred also to make these changes—in particular, to have a low-carbon electricity system as this is often the greatest cause of emissions in those countries.

Stella Creasy: The Minister put her finger on it when she said that this is going to be about some tough decisions. She expressed concern about describing this as a climate emergency because what she really wanted to do was to move the dial. Ireland has been able to move the dial not by leaving the public out on the streets but by bringing them into a citizens’ assembly—a proper citizens’ assembly that hears the views not just of the activists but of everyone. That has supported carbon taxes and an end to subsidies for peat extraction, meaning that Ireland is now the first country to divest from fossil fuel. Will the Minister meet me and others who are supportive of the idea of a citizens’ assembly to talk about whether that is the cross-party, cross-country way forward by which we can actually tackle this climate emergency?

Claire Perry: With pleasure. I point out to the hon. Lady that we already have a carbon tax. We introduced a unilateral tax on carbon emissions, which is what has driven us off coal. She does not seem to realise what an achievement that is. When she and I were elected, 40% of our electricity system was coal-based. Of course I will meet her, but let us look at what has worked and see how we can do more of that.

Luke Graham: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 2017 PwC report which shows that the United Kingdom is the fastest decarbonising nation of the G7? Can she tell us how the Government are supporting new technologies, such as the use of hydrogen to heat domestic homes in the Keele University experiment, and what further steps can be taken to promote geothermal energy in Clackmannanshire?

Claire Perry: I welcome my hon. Friend’s mentioning an independent report which shows that we have decarbonised, as a proportion of our economic growth, faster than any other country in not just the G7 but the G20. We continue to work to accelerate our carbon reduction. He is right to focus on heating, which is a major problem for a centralised gas-based heating economy such as ours. Innovation is happening in Keele, Leeds and other areas to see how we might safely introduce hydrogen into the heating system. Of course, we then have to produce hydrogen in a low-carbon emissions form, which is an opportunity to use excess renewable energy, and particularly offshore wind. This is an incredibly innovative time. By the way, if we can help the world migrate to hydrogen boilers and make those boilers in the UK, we can export them and create a competitive advantage as part of this transition.

Hilary Benn: Looking at the climate science, I do not suppose that a single Member of the House does not ask themselves, “How can we make the changes that are needed?” The Minister will be aware that the Committee on Climate Change said  in November that emissions from homes are off track and we will need to replace gas with hydrogen boilers and supplementary electric heating. Given that about 80% of homes depend on gas for heating or cooking, how will that change happen?

Claire Perry: The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise homes, although they are responsible for only 15% of our CO2 emissions. In fact, the biggest nut we have to crack is industrial emissions, which is arguably much harder to do. There will be no one-size-fits-all policy on homes. There will be some decarbonisation of gas, some introduction of pure hydrogen, a move to electrification and a use of community heating or heat networks. Some amazingly innovative local authorities—Nottingham and Leeds spring to mind—are trying to design new forms of heating system into their local economies and home building programmes. That is how we will innovate and drive the cost down. I think that the announcement of no fossil fuel heating in new homes from 2025 will kick-start a revolution, particularly in reducing the cost of alternatives such as heat pumps.

Steve Brine: The protests last week did not greatly inconvenience my constituents, but many of them, like me, share the concerns about the grave emissions situation we face. I do not think that panicking ever helped any situation, but does the excellent Minister agree that if we are going to do our bit on these small islands, we have to face up to the poor energy efficiency of our existing homes? We will need a new green deal, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said. The Minister can call it whatever she likes, but we will need a retrofit new green deal if we are going to move the dial—that seems to be the expression of the afternoon—and lower emissions.

Claire Perry: I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend that the focus on retrofitting is hugely important. He and I put ourselves on the green deal Bill Committee because we believed there was a way to incentivise people—if someone retrofits their home, their energy bills go down, and they often get a higher sale price or a lower running cost.
We have to work in all sectors. There will continue to be an element of Government investment. We are working with mortgage lenders. There is evidence that offering a green mortgage pays for itself, because people can borrow more cheaply and get a better rate of return. There has to be many ways of doing this. In constituencies like mine, many homes are not suitable for traditional retrofit technologies such as cavity wall insulation. That is why part of the £2.6 billion we are spending on innovation over this Parliament has to go into finding solutions for such homes.

Vincent Cable: The Minister is right that there are some sectors, such as power generation, in which major progress has been made in carbon reduction, but does she agree that there are others, such as aviation, where virtually nothing is taking place? Does she agree that the Government should re-examine major expansion projects such as Heathrow specifically to look at the climate change implications?

Claire Perry: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me into another Department’s area. I have to say that I believe that most of the emissions problems with this specific aviation project relate to transport to and from the airport, and clearly there is much more that can be done on that with the Department for Transport. Equally, however, we have to look at how we try to solve the aviation problem globally. Again, there is no point trying to do something unilaterally that disadvantages the UK economy, when we could be working to solve the problem. One of the things the Department has been doing is investing in alternative fuels, in many cases created from the waste products of other processes, and that is the sort of innovation we need to see because unless we can drop the emissions from aviation substantially, we will not be on track.

Vicky Ford: The science is clear that we need to stop pumping more emissions into the climate. I thank the Minister for spending time with the Science and Technology Committee today and answering very detailed questions on the Government’s policy. Does she agree with the other four experts before the Committee that the UK has led the world in investment in innovative technology, such as carbon capture and storage, and does she agree with me and many colleagues that the UK should continue to lead the world in investment in innovative technologies to help find solutions to this situation?

Claire Perry: I thank my hon. Friend for raising carbon capture and storage. Members will know that a competition was run several years ago, and it was a rather crude, as it were, point-to-point competition—in one case, it was just decarbonising a coal plant that would in effect no longer be generating power. We are now trying to work out how carbon capture, usage and storage are embedded in an industrial cluster, so that we can actually decarbonise heavy industry and create a way of sequestering the carbon alongside clean power generation. This is how I think we will solve the problems: not looking at them in economic silos, but trying to solve these problems on a whole-economy basis.

Kerry McCarthy: The global food system accounts for 30% of emissions, and it is said that without any action—if we do not do anything about it—food and farming will take up the whole of  the Paris carbon emissions budget, so why is no one talking about it? I have been sitting here listening to this, and I have sat here listening to many of these debates, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of parliamentarians who are ever prepared to ask what we are going to do about the global food system.

Claire Perry: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has been walking the vegan walk now for many years and has been a doughty campaigner. She is absolutely right: CO2 emissions from land use and farming will continue to rise precipitously unless we have changes both in the way we treat soil—she will know about the UK’s plans for improving carbon sequestration in soil—and in how we farm. Unfortunately, the challenge is also about how we feed the world cost-effectively, and we need to continue to look at technological solutions for that, but she is right to focus on this. I find that this and the industrial emissions bit are the parts that people very rarely talk about, so I thank her for raising this issue.

Nigel Adams: The Minister is right to raise the effect that this Government have had on emissions, particularly from the power sector. I am sure she will remember that, during the Labour leadership campaign of 2015, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said he wanted to reopen the coalmines. He went on to win the leadership—it was a very popular policy—and a couple of months later he clarified that he wanted to reopen only one coalmine in south Wales. Will the Minister update the House on how the Leader of the Opposition’s campaign to reopen the coalmines is going?

Claire Perry: I was not at the Durham miners’ gala where those pledges were made, but, with the exception of some Opposition Members, I think there is general cross-party support for phasing out coal, which is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel, as a power-generation source. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is also, I believe, against nuclear power, so that would leave an awfully big hole in the thermal generation part of the energy system.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who will know from his own constituency of Selby and Ainsty that some of these transitions can be difficult, involving job losses. This is why it is such a challenge for other countries, and why the transition we have to make has to be just and fair, and has to ensure that people’s jobs are maintained and new jobs are created.

Thangam Debbonaire: The Minister asks what would be the point of her declaring a climate change emergency. Well, it is because it is an emergency. It is an emergency right now and it is an emergency across the world—glaciers are melting, seas are rising—and the Minister knows this. I just do not understand, and I do not think people watching or my constituents in Bristol West will understand, what is stopping her declaring a climate change emergency and then treating the problem as an emergency.

Claire Perry: Let me try to help the hon. Lady and her constituents. I do not see the point of saying anything unless we take action to solve the problem. We are now realising that we have a massive, growing problem with  our global emissions, affecting the balance of our economy. We in this country lead the world in trying to solve this problem. I accept that we need to go further and faster, but I want to focus on actions rather than simply standing here and saying, “I have said a few things—job done.” Let us focus on actions, not words.

Edward Leigh: Exactly; so having instituted the fastest decarbonisation of any G20 country, will the Minister remind the House what proportion of total global emissions we produce—I think it is 1%—compared with, say, China? We all know what would happen to an Extinction Rebellion demonstration in Tiananmen Square. If we want to make a real difference, what practical steps are we taking internationally to encourage China, the USA and India to take real action?

Claire Perry: My right hon. Friend is right to point out that we make up only 3% of the world’s land area and we rank 17th for carbon emissions. If he will forgive me, however, his suggestion is a little bit of a false choice, because much of our growth and prosperity has been caused by putting the CO2 up there in the first place. I think that it is very unfair to say to countries that they cannot enjoy future growth unless they are prepared drastically to cut their standard of living.
The point is that we must work together. I pay tribute to many of the actions that have been taken in China and India, where some of the most rapid investments are being made in electric vehicles and renewable energy. That is the reason why solar panel prices have dropped more than 80% in the UK; we no longer need to subsidise them because of other countries’ investments. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that we must work together. A CO2 molecule does not care where it is emitted from, or where it is going. We are all contributing to the problem, and we must contribute to the solution.

Sammy Wilson: Many of the businesses, citizens and workers who have had their lives disrupted over the past week by protesters—some of whom flew thousands of miles in CO2-emitting aeroplanes to cause roadblocks, which led to more CO2 emissions, and then arrogantly threatened to disrupt the Easter holidays of many hard-working families—will be amazed by some of the attitudes expressed in this House today. Will the Minister tell us why police actions that have been used against previous disruptive protests in London were not used on this occasion? Was it because of Government direction, the Mayor of London or a decision taken by the police?

Claire Perry: The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I pay tribute to the response of the Met police, under its commissioner; the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the response today. I think there was a little bit of nervousness at the beginning of the process, unfortunately, led by the Mayor of London, who did not recognise that millions of people’s lives would be disrupted. [Interruption.] Hang on a minute; Members are moaning and whinging, but what is the point of stopping people using electric public transport so that they have to take cars? That seems utterly counterintuitive.   We ended up with a proportionate response, and I pay tribute once again to the police, who acted in a very good-humoured way to confine the protests.

Colin Clark: It is imperative to reduce greenhouse gases, and the replacement of coal by natural gas has vastly reduced such gases. Does the Minister agree that we should back a responsible UK oil and gas sector, and not offshore our climate change responsibility?

Claire Perry: I do, and my hon. Friend will know, as do many of his Conservative colleagues, that the incredible contribution of the oil and gas sector to the Scottish economy cannot be overstated. He will also know that we can decarbonise gas very effectively, and, frankly, we produce it with environmental standards far higher than those in the countries from which we import.

Dennis Skinner: After all that the Minister has had to say today, why are the Government still in favour of fracking?

Claire Perry: The two things are entirely linked. We are a highly gas-dependent economy, as we know. We want to cut the amount of gas that we use, but it is a good transitional fuel. The hon. Gentleman always shouts over me, which is very rude. We want to explore soberly and scientifically whether there are opportunities to extract gas onshore in a way that helps us with our energy security—something he used to care about, when he was mining the black stuff all those years ago—and helps us to generate jobs. Why is it that we trust the science on climate change, but when science says that shale gas extraction is safe, we refuse to listen?

Philip Hollobone: The environment is important to all of us in the Kettering constituency, which is one of the greenest boroughs in the whole country, with 30 very large wind turbines generating almost as much electricity as is consumed by all the residential houses. I am concerned, however. While we must of course allow people to protest and this is a very important issue, I do object, on behalf of many thousands of my constituents, to encouraging schoolchildren to go on strike. It is important for schoolchildren to have strong views on topical issues, but why can they not protest at the weekend? Education is very important.

Claire Perry: It is a very serious point. Ms Thunberg’s efforts, which have become a global phenomenon, demonstrate the power of a young person deciding to make these statements. What I would say to protesting schoolchildren is this: “We need the climate engineers, the geo-physicists and the scientists of the future. Those are skills that you will learn best by engaging in education. You are protesting; we are listening. We have to work together and we need your skills to solve this problem.”

Liam Byrne: The west midlands was the home of the industrial revolution. We sparked the carbon revolution; we would like to lead the zero-carbon revolution. However, it has been harder to decarbonise our power system since the Government phased out feed-in tariffs for solar. It is harder to decarbonise our transport system because of the confusion, identified by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee before Christmas, around electric vehicles.  It is harder to decarbonise energy in our homes when the Minister cannot tell me, in parliamentary answers, our share of the energy company obligation funding that might fund that retrofitting. Cities in this country would like to lead the green industrial revolution, so why does she not help them?

Claire Perry: I will certainly look at the last point. It may be that we just do not cut the data by metropolitan area. ECO is an important fund that we are using to focus on fuel poverty and create more innovation. I do not think there is confusion. The feed-in tariff scheme, which he will know given his time in the Treasury, was an extremely expensive scheme. We have spent almost £6 billion so far and it will cost us £30 billion over the future of the scheme. Essentially, as I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we have seen the price of the renewable technologies we are supporting tumble. We do not have to subsidise to drive take-up. The smart export guarantee, which I will introduce soon, will pay people for that generation and ensure there is a demand-side aggregation created in the homes investing in it.
On transport, we have been very clear. We have one of the most ambitious programmes of moving to zero-carbon new vehicle sales. [Interruption.] It is true. Opposition Members should look at what other countries are doing. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency that one in five of the electric vehicles sold in Europe is made in the UK. We do not just want to be leaders in how many are driving on our roads; we want to be leaders in investing in the technology that the world is moving towards.

Nigel Huddleston: Does the Minister agree that caring about climate change and the environment is not a monopoly of the left—far from it, as evidenced by the many actions of this Government—but that there is a political debate to be had? Does she agree that it is possible to reduce emissions and grow the economy and that this is particularly important not only for the UK but for many of the world’s developing economies?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. There is too much fear and not enough hope. If we look at the UK, the low-carbon economic sector is growing four times faster than the mainstream economy and we have 400,000 people—bigger than the aerospace sector—employed in green jobs. We can continue to see the global opportunities from investment. This is a massive opportunity. Not only are we saving the world’s ecosystems; we are creating jobs for the future. We know that 65% of those under 24 want what they call a green-collar job. They just do not know how many are out there.

Helen Goodman: One way we can decarbonise homes is by using geothermal energy, particularly in former mining areas. The University of Durham has done a lot of research on this subject. Would the Minister like to come to learn about the research it is doing and consider how we can implement it?

Claire Perry: It would be a pleasure to come and visit. We have had several debates on geothermal heat, in particular from old mine workings. It seems only fitting  that the blood, sweat and tears of those thousands of men who dug up the energy source of our first industrial revolution could somehow be reused by using hot water as another source of energy.

Clive Lewis: I welcome the Minister’s comments about listening to and acting on the science. If that is the case, the Committee on Climate Change has questioned whether support for oil and gas may become incompatible with the Government’s long-term climate change objectives. In the spirit of not disappearing down a rabbit hole of conflict, perhaps we can agree, on both sides of the House, on whether there is a sustainable way to reduce fossil fuel extraction to move from maximum economic recovery to sustainable economic recovery.

Claire Perry: That is a very important point. The oil and gas industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of people, has contributed billions to our Exchequer and is extremely important to communities north of the border. It is one of our most productive industries. It is part of the transition, and the exciting thing is that technologies such as offshore wind, the sector deal for which I announced just recently, will be a brilliant industry for many of those employees to transition into. In fact, our world leadership in working in very difficult offshore conditions in oil and gas exploration is perfect for offshore wind, so there is a natural transition. Of course, these are important industries, which I believe also recognise the role that they have to play in the transition.

Joanna Cherry: A young woman from Boroughmuir High School in my constituency wrote to me ahead of the school climate strikes, calling for politicians to prioritise wind and tidal power over nuclear and fossil fuels. The Scottish Government are trying to do that, but until such time as we become independent, we require the UK Government’s assistance. Can the Minister tell me when the Government will reverse their policy of prioritising new nuclear plants and putting the kybosh on tidal power in Scotland?

Claire Perry: I will not correct the hon. and learned Lady on too many things, but we have a mixed, diverse energy supply, which is decarbonising very rapidly. We have not put the kybosh on tidal. In fact, we invested the same amount in R&D funding for tidal as we did with any other technology; it is just that other renewables have out-competed it much more rapidly. However, I was pleased to meet the renewable energy council and cross-party support recently to see what more we can do to support that. I believe that nuclear has a part to play. It is part of our zero-carbon future. We have a nuclear sector deal and it is an incredibly productive industry for the United Kingdom.

Richard Graham: I welcome what the Minister had to say on our cleanest and greenest year for electricity yet and her approach to the Committee on Climate Change, but does she share some of my concerns about the goals of Extinction Rebellion? This is an organisation that has pledged to take non-violent direct action but whose co-founder was arrested on charges of criminal damage against corporate headquarters.  To what extent are the Government also looking at how we can mitigate the potentially violent actions of this movement?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we should be able to have a civilised, important and strong debate about our aims. It is challenging, though, to see that there are acts of violence or acts of criminal damage. I am also aware that no political party or campaigning organisation is endorsing one of the key asks of Extinction Rebellion, which is a net-zero emissions target by 2025. It is simply not something that can be delivered. It is right to have that challenge, but we have to be able to take what we do best in this country, which is to have a civilised debate, and apply it to the most important issue of our time.

Bambos Charalambous: The Minister mentioned her international influence in relation to reducing carbon emissions. The USA is one of the biggest CO2 polluters in the world. Can she ask the Prime Minister to use all her influence when President Trump comes to the UK to get the US to recommit to its obligations from the Paris summit and to set up a climate emergency in the USA to tackle global warming?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but despite the rhetoric, the US’s decarbonisation record is very good. In fact, it cut its carbon intensity by 3.7% for the year ending in 2017, which is well ahead of the global average and, indeed, well ahead of the EU’s average. He will know that this is about not just federal actions, but the actions of states, cities and companies. The We Are Still In coalition, which is hugely accelerating work on decarbonisation action—for example, the net-zero targets of the state of California—is delivering real change in the United States, and we should celebrate that.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I, too, had the honour of meeting Greta Thunberg at the parliamentary leaders’ roundtable discussions this morning. I would like to put on record my thanks to all the youth climate change activists who have succeeded in putting climate change at the top of the agenda.
Climate change waits for no Government. I travelled to London on the train with Heather Bolton from Gwynedd. She was on her way to attend the Extinction Rebellion protests in Westminster. We talked about Fairbourne on the Gwynedd coast where the whole community has been warned to prepare to move out within 40 years. Climate change is more than a passing inconvenience to the people of Fairbourne. Will the Minister accept my invitation to visit the community and see the economic, social and human cost of inaction?

Claire Perry: I am always delighted to visit installations in Wales—I visited Bridgend with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and saw the amazing innovation work being led there—so it would be an absolute pleasure. The hon. Lady is right to point out that this is not just a challenge for a few. The Karman layer—the line where the earth’s atmosphere merges into outer space and where all the gases on which life depends are found—is 60 miles deep. I would not get even halfway to her  constituency, if I was driving straight up, before I tipped out of the atmospheric layer. That is why this is such an important opportunity and we must work together.

Danielle Rowley: If you can believe it, Mr Speaker, it was not in the too-distant past that I was a young activist. What I hated then and what I know young people hate now is when politicians say the future is theirs, because the present is theirs and this planet is theirs. One of the four demands of the climate strikers is extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. They are so passionate about this topic. Will the Minister agree to giving them the vote so that they can vote on it?

Claire Perry: I did not realise the demands had got that broad. The hon. Lady is right to focus on something really important: it is the job of Governments to steward what they have for a period of time and then pass it on in a better state to the next generation. Whether it is the earth’s climate or the economy, that is what we exist to do. I do not know where the argument about the voting age sits in that. We have heard loud and clear what the next generation, and indeed grannies, grandpas, parents—all of us—need to do. We need to work together to accelerate our actions.

Wera Hobhouse: I congratulate the young people in many countries across the world without whom we would not be here today having this debate. They have reminded us how urgent the climate crisis is and that we have to be very ambitious—a lot more ambitious than we have been so far. Are the Government committed to making our electricity grid 100% carbon zero before 2050? If so, when will we know about this new target?

Claire Perry: When I launched the offshore wind sector deal, I said that power generation would be at least 70% net carbon zero by 2030—in only 11 years—so we can extrapolate from that. There is a view among energy system modellers, however, that there will always need to be some level of thermal energy generation on the grid, because you cannot do a cold start based on current renewable and storage technology, which raises the question of how we further decarbonise our gas supply in particular.

Rachael Maskell: Complacency in government is the reason young people have left their classrooms to educate politicians and to challenge us in this place. Rather than just warm words, in the light that we are going to miss our fourth and fifth carbon budgets, will the Minister commit to setting every public authority and local authority stringent carbon budgets?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady is right to point out the role of local authorities. I believe that much policy is best pulled through at a local level, where it is possible to join up regeneration, transport systems, cycling and walking strategies and so on, rather than pushed out from Westminster. The young people of today—it is such a patronising phrase, isn’t it? Everybody in the UK today should be proud of the fact that we listened and 10 years ago with cross-party support passed the world’s first Climate Change Act. We listen in this place. We  might not act as quickly as people want, or in the ways people want, but we must look at our early movement and the fact that we have led the world in decarbonisation. We are listening and we are acting.

Jonathan Reynolds: Dealing with the climate emergency will require us to ensure that billions of pounds are invested in low-carbon technologies. Most of that money will come from the private sector, and must be invested in heat and transport technologies in particular. The money is there, but for it to be invested at scale will require certainty.
Since 2010, zero-carbon homes have been needlessly scrapped by the coalition Government; now that is coming back. The energy company obligation solid-wall programme lasted less than a year after it was announced. Tidal lagoons have been flirted with, and have gone nowhere. The carbon capture fund money was put up and then taken away. Onshore wind was banned entirely. The Green Investment Bank was set up, and has already been sold off. That is fundamentally why green investment in the UK is falling. Where there has been certainty—mainly in offshore wind—progress has indeed been rapid. However, it is not just the protesters but those in the financial markets who are saying that while there has been some good progress, it is just not enough. Perhaps it is time for the Government to listen to one or both of those groups.

Claire Perry: Many of the projects that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned were being funded entirely by Government subsidies. The Government have no money of their own; the money that they have is other people’s money. Someone has to pay—either the taxpayers and consumers who have already borne many of the policy costs, or private sector shareholders. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the importance of certainty, and policies that will stand the test of political time, such as those that we have set out now in the clean growth strategy, will secure that investment certainty. The good news is that the world is moving rapidly away from high-carbon investments, and investors are looking for opportunities that we are able to offer.

Hannah Bardell: We salute 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the school climate strikers and Extinction Rebellion. They have shone a light on the issue of the issue of climate change in a way that it seems only David Attenborough is able to equal. Surely the Minister recognises that her Government must do more. Perhaps they could follow the lead of the SNP Scottish Government, with their world-leading climate change targets, and perhaps—as was suggested by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley)—they could follow our example of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on these issues, because they are clearly well ahead of some of the dinosaurs in this place.

Claire Perry: I do not see too many dinosaurs in the building today. However, I pay tribute to both the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government, who have worked incredibly well on these issues. We share one goal, we share one set of climate budgets, and we share one set of, largely, taxpayer receipts which have paid for much of this investment. We must continue to work together, and we must look   for points at which we can come together rather than looking for those at which we can diverge, which I am afraid the hon. Lady’s party often wants to do.

Julie Cooper: Climate change is not a party political issue, but an issue of global importance. In the light of that, the Government’s complacency today, and their refusal to take leadership at a national level, is extremely worrying.
I feel very emotional about this issue. I listened to Greta earlier, and I applaud her for pointing out the obvious, for inspiring us, and for reminding us how crucial it is that we take action now. This morning my granddaughter was born. Looking at her, I feel that we owe it to these children and young people—the Government owe it to them, and let me politely say to the Minister that she owes it to them—to demonstrate that we are doing more than talking about this. What actions will the Minister take to ensure that those young people have the future that they deserve?

Claire Perry: I congratulate the hon. Lady on becoming a granny. That does not seem possible.
Whatever I say, or other Ministers say, from the Dispatch Box is reported in Hansard, and is the next day’s chip paper. What we must do is act. We must set out actions, set out our ambitions, and work together.  I am disappointed to hear that the hon. Lady thinks I have been complacent at the Dispatch Box. I have tried incredibly hard to show that we are listening, we are acting, and we are delivering. We must accelerate that, but the hon. Lady should be proud of the fact that ours is the first developed country to say, “Help us to understand what net zero looks like: what will the changes have  to be?” Does that sound hopeless? It sounds hopeful  to me.

Chris Bryant: Despite living in an area of multiple deprivation, the vast majority of my constituents own their homes, but it is very difficult for them to make those homes viable and to conserve energy. The previous system, introduced by the coalition Government, was a complete and utter disaster: local businesses closed, and a great deal of shoddy work was done. Many families were desperate, because they thought that they had wasted money and were financially out of pocket themselves. Will the Government look closely at a new means of ensuring that people like my constituents can do their bit, although they have not much money in their own pockets?

Claire Perry: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Each Home Counts review that we did, whose recommendations we have accepted, and where we have a trust mark for the work he mentions, should stop this problem happening in the future. Too much shoddy work has been done. Reparations have been made. Essentially, people have to have confidence that the work they are having done to their homes is of a high standard and is effective.

Catherine West: Tragically, Ella Kissi-Debrah lost her life to asthma, and the courts are currently looking at whether the authorities had any responsibility in that tragic death. I believe there is a crisis in children’s respiratory health.  There is a meeting tonight with the title “Pollution Has No Borders”. One thing the Government could do would be to take away the cuts to local councils, which were looking at having more clean buses. Just increasing the number of bus journeys rather than car journeys would help not only lots of people on low incomes but the planet. Please could that be one thing that the Minister takes away from these questions and pledges to look into? Will she give that money back to councils so that action can be taken on our terribly polluted air?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady is right to point out that one problem we do not talk about enough is that CO2 pollution is often associated with particulate pollution, and one of the co-benefits of cutting emissions is that we get cleaner air. However, I gently say that she is wrong to focus on a reduction in budgets for zero-carbon transport. My recollection—I will check this and write to her—is that those budgets have gone up, and I myself have seen some of the hydrogen and hybrid buses that are running. Of course, the challenge is also to get more cars off the roads, because they obviously have a far greater level of pollutant per mile travelled, and to ensure that children, particularly in the most deprived areas, have clean air to breathe.

Jo Swinson: Extinction Rebellion is a vital movement. During the protests on Sunday, my five-year-old son Andrew and I found an amazing sense of positivity, peace and passion for change. Young people are leading the way, and we must listen to them. Does the Minister recognise that, for all the action that is being taken, it will not be enough on the current trajectory, and that we need a transformation in the level of our ambition if we are to secure our future?

Claire Perry: I do recognise that ambitions need to be raised not just here but around the world. That is why I hope we will have the chance to secure the crucial climate change talks next year, because we need to demonstrate that that is possible and not something to be frightened of. We need to work together with other countries to try to raise ambition collectively, and it will be wonderful to have cross-party support for the UK to be the host of those talks.

Clive Efford: I think I could sum up the Minister’s response today as, “The rest of the world is rubbish. We are better. We are doing things ahead of everybody else. I can’t understand why people came here and demonstrated.” By definition, it was a peaceful definition, but over 1,000 people managed to defy the authorities to the point where they were arrested. These people are not going to go away. So, Minister, what has changed as a result of their protests over the last few days?

Claire Perry: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that that is a really wrong reading of what I have said, and I am happy to send him Hansard—he will find that quite the opposite was said. What has changed is that everything has changed in a way, in that we now know how broad this protest is and the depth of people’s feelings. We are as frustrated as they are about some of the challenges, but we also have to recognise in this  place that whatever we do is fair to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to my constituents and to those who pay for the changes. I must also mean that the world can come with us, and I want to keep emphasising that point. We must not be complacent—nobody is complacent—but we have shown that we can deliver, that we will deliver and that we know we need to do more. However, we will have to do that together.

Anna McMorrin: The Extinction Rebellion protest over the last few days has prevented business as usual, but that is nothing compared with what climate change will do, and is doing, in certain areas of the world. It is not good enough to talk the talk and not walk the walk. This issue needs a fundamental, transformative shift in our economy and in what we do. The Secretary of State is shutting her eyes and ears on this. Will she tell us today what action is actually being taken across Government to demonstrate that fundamental shift and to challenge business as usual?

Claire Perry: I thank the hon. Lady for my inadvertent promotion. She just has to look at the numbers: we have had the cleanest year for electricity generation that we have ever had, and this weekend this country, which was built on coal, went for the longest period ever without using any coal. We are legislating to ensure that homes will have no more fossil fuel heating, and 42,000 homes in my constituency are now off the gas grid. From 2025, no home will be able to be built there unless it has some other form of heating. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she knows better than many in this place, given her long involvement in these matters, that it is all very well for politicians to stand up and mouth empty platitudes but what we have to do is deliver actions, not words. That is what we are delivering.

Catherine McKinnell: As the Minister knows, the Governor of the Bank of England warned last week that climate change poses a financial risk to investments such as people’s pension savings. In March, the $1 trillion Norwegian sovereign wealth fund declared that it would no longer invest in oil and gas exploration, in order to minimise exposure to those climate-related financial risks. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the green finance strategy includes incentives for people to invest and for organisations to provide investments that are sustainable?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of pension fund investing. When we had our Green Great Britain Week last year, we said that one of the most effective things that an individual could do was to their move pension fund if they were able to, or to lobby the trustees of their pension fund, like the House of Commons pension fund’s trustees, to move away from fossil fuel or unsustainable investment. The opportunities are there, and I am really proud of the work that the Bank of England has done on the climate risk disclosure, but clearly we need to do more. If the hon. Lady has ideas, we would be extremely keen to discuss them, because we would be much better off if we all put our heads together.

Anneliese Dodds: My city of Oxford is the first in the country to create a citizens assembly focused on the climate crisis. The Minister  said that she wanted a broad-based debate, but we all know what happens far too often: we have a politically expedient knee-jerk reaction to anything that goes against the status quo. So please will she come to Oxford, see what we are doing, and look genuinely at these cases so that we can have a much more broad-based discussion about the climate crisis and do something about it?

Claire Perry: Of course, and part of the reason that I am so passionate about this is that I studied climate change, geography and meteorology at Oxford University many years ago. Many of the people associated with the university have been world leaders in understanding the science, and Oxford City Council has done some amazing things in this space. Again, we are really keen to learn. I do not accept that there are knee-jerk political reactions. The clean growth strategy sets out what we will do over the next 25 years to meet our budgets, but if we have good ideas, let us stop hoarding them; let us share them.

Daniel Zeichner: One of the sectors that has not done well on reducing carbon emissions is road transport. One of the policy levers that used to be available was the fuel duty escalator, which the coalition Government ceased to proceed with and which the current Government do not want to return to. Does the Minister agree that that matter needs to be looked at again and that, in terms of carbon emissions, those decisions were a mistake?

Claire Perry: I mentioned at the beginning that we have to do things that are proportionate and fair. I know that the hon. Gentleman supported the cap on fuel prices that we put in, because we had to ensure that it was not the least well-off who were paying for the transition. I pay tribute to his work and to his own personal cycling activities. As he knows, the city of Cambridge is an exemplar for cycling and for effectively ensuring that road transport becomes a thing of the past.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for supporting the message and for her actions. I was among the MPs who attended the meeting to listen to Greta Thunberg today. She is 16 years old and an inspirational young girl; she inspired me and many other Members as well. At 16 years of age, she is just six years older than my oldest grandchild Katie, 10 years older than my grandchild Mia and almost 16 years older than my grandchild Austin. What message would the Minister give to my three grandchildren and all other children that the climate action being taken today will have made a difference?

Claire Perry: By working together, we can solve the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. It will be difficult, but it is doable. In doing so, we will create jobs and prosperity for the next generation.

Matthew Pennycook: The Minister will know that over half of the UK’s planned carbon reduction is tied up in some way or another with EU regulations and that EU agencies are key to enforcement. Assuming that the Government’s new office for environmental protection is ever established, will it have a climate change enforcement remit? If not, why not?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman will be able to discuss that matter further during the passage of the environment Bill. He makes a powerful point, but I reassure him, as I have said many times, that no part of our exiting the EU will compromise our climate ambition. Indeed, our progress to date is well ahead of the rest of the EU.

Seema Malhotra: I extend my thanks to and express my admiration of Greta Thunberg, whose speech I had the honour of hearing today—her microphone was working, which I know was of concern to her at some points. Much needs to change, and we need to move forward together as a country to deliver that change sustainably. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), what substantial and specific plans does the Minister have for how we should formally engage with the public on how we respond, in policy and legislative terms, to our climate crisis? Why will she not consider a citizen’s assembly?

Claire Perry: I have not ruled such an assembly in or out, and I am interested in how one would work. I am also interested in how the Youth Parliament could provide a steer for younger people coming to this place. The hon. Lady said that we have not had this conversation, but I was struck when I launched the first Green Great Britain Week last October that it marked the first time that we had had a national moment at which we could come together to talk about what we had achieved and then challenge ourselves to go further. There have been many campaigns, such as the Climate Coalition’s brilliant #ShowTheLove campaign, but one of the exciting things—the hon. Lady asked me what we are doing that is different—is that this conversation has stopped being niche and started being mainstream. If the hon. Lady thinks that citizen’s assemblies are the way to go and that we should be listening to them to get a stronger steer, let us have a conversation to see how that could work.

Melanie Onn: Will the Minister overturn the ban on onshore wind?

Claire Perry: There is no ban on onshore wind, as the hon. Lady well knows. I was elected on a manifesto which said that large-scale wind development, of which there is now 13 gigawatts in the UK, rising to 14 gigawatts over the next year, is not appropriate for many parts of England. She will know from her constituency the benefits that offshore wind can deliver. We can put up 198 turbines, each as tall as the Gherkin, which offers incredible opportunities for the offshore servicing fleet in her constituency. We can regenerate the coastal communities that service such developments. We will continue to invest in onshore wind, but large-scale onshore developments are inappropriate for many parts of England.

Darren Jones: Alongside a growing list of my Opposition colleagues—71 as of now—I have written to the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House calling on the Government to table at least a day’s worth of debate in Government time to discuss their response to the Committee on Climate Change on how we will achieve net-zero carbon emissions sooner rather than later. Will the Minister support that request today and join us in that debate?

Claire Perry: I will let the usual channels work out the timetable, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I will talk about such issues all day. In fact, I am due to make another statement in a short period of time, so we can do all this again.

John Bercow: And more. There is plenty of scope.

Alison Thewliss: The Minister is keen to trumpet the fact that the UK went 90 hours and 45 minutes without coal power, but the reality is that her Government are not making nearly enough of our potential in onshore and offshore wind, solar, wave and hydroelectric, particularly in pump-storage hydro. Scotland’s efforts are being stymied by her Government’s policies. What specific measures will she bring in to incentivise renewables across the UK?

Claire Perry: We are already incentivising renewables. We have always said—I believe that this is right—that we must be technologically neutral in such things. All technologies started out from pretty much the same place, but some have progressed faster than others. We must also have cost-effectiveness, so we cannot spend other people’s money on supporting technologies that will remain expensive over the long term—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is waving her hands, but is it not incredible that the price of offshore wind has dropped over the past two years by a proportion befitting a technology company, let alone a mechanical engineering company, because of the policy and auction structure and the market investment that we have brought forward? We should be celebrating that and the fact that the North sea is the best place in the world for offshore wind.

Louise Haigh: Global Witness published a report this morning that found that $4.9 trillion is invested in oilfields and gasfields that are either in development or not yet in production and will therefore contribute to exceeding a global warming scenario of 1.5°, as per the terms of the Paris accord. Much of that investment comes from FTSE 100-registered companies. What legal advice will the Government be giving to London headquartered businesses that are investing in breach of our international obligations?

Claire Perry: I am sure the hon. Lady has also read “The Burning Question”, which was published in 2013   and addresses the challenge of the valuation of oil and gas reserves. Indeed, I have already answered a question on this subject. There is a challenge on how quickly the oil and gas companies are transitioning but, as we were discussing earlier, many people in the UK, including the Exchequer, rely on this industry, which has allowed us to cross-subsidise much of the renewables success we have delivered. She also knows that these companies are global organisations, and we need to work globally to ensure we solve the problem.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister talks about action not words, and she also talks about the clean growth strategy. What does she think of the plans to downgrade the electrification of rail lines and, as the Secretary of State for Transport has done, to invest in and promote bimodal trains, which obviously are diesel for part of the time?

Claire Perry: I am having a flashback to my old job as rail Minister. The hon. Lady’s constituency is a beneficiary of some of the big investments we are making, such as in the wind turbine factories located up there. We always need to balance cost, carbon and competitive advantage, and it was the case that we could deliver those benefits to passengers with those bimodal trains, which obviously have much lower CO2 emissions than if they were full diesel, and I am sure her constituents welcome that investment.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The point of declaring a carbon emergency is to take action immediately, not in 2025 or 2030, so why are we not changing the planning rules so that all homes have to be carbon neutral now? Why are we not ensuring that all new buses on our streets are non-carbon emitting? These things are possible.
A thousand people have been arrested on the street in order to raise this issue in the House and in the country. Does the Minister agree that it is not in the public interest to prosecute those people? They should be getting awards, not prosecutions.

Claire Perry: I thought there might be a bit of Mace-waving coming on with that passionate speech. I will leave the question to my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Justice.

SOUTH-EASTERN RAIL FRANCHISE

Michael Fallon: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his decision to delay, yet again, the award of the south-eastern rail franchise.

Andrew Jones: In June 2017, the Department for Transport announced that the shortlisted bidders for the south-eastern franchise competition were: South Eastern Holdings Ltd; London and South East Passenger Rail Services Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Govia and the current incumbent; and Stagecoach South Eastern Trains Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Stagecoach Group plc.
Subsequently, in December 2018, the Department exercised an extension with the existing south-eastern operator, London and South Eastern Railway, until 23 June 2019 to allow further time for the competition to identify the next operator for the franchise. The Department is now in the process of negotiating a further direct award which, subject to a successful negotiation, will run until 10 November 2019, with an option to extend the agreement until April 2020. We are taking these steps to ensure continuity of services for passengers. This additional time is necessary to deliver the best possible outcome for passengers and taxpayers alike. We will update the House in the usual way as soon as this work is concluded.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the rail Minister, but he has not quite explained why such a mess has been made of this franchise. Can he confirm exactly when my constituents, who already pay the second-highest fares in the home counties, will get the long-promised new carriages? Can he explain why, if the franchising system is now under review, he has been able to award an eight-year franchise for the east midlands? Finally, can he explain why the compensation in respect of last year’s timetable chaos is not going to the two stations most affected in my constituency, Shoreham and Eynsford, when the two operators enjoy common ownership? Is it not time to restore confidence in the whole franchising system?

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for those questions. He has been a strong and tenacious champion for rail passengers in his constituency, raising issues with me and speaking in Westminster Hall debates. I share his impatience to get the benefits that are emerging from our franchises to his, and indeed to all, constituents. This is a huge and complex piece of public procurement, and it is right to take the time to make sure we get it right and to finalise this competition. The area is one of the most complex on our network; it has a mix of high-speed and commuter services, with a highly intensive use of infrastructure. I cannot tell him the date on which we will be able to make the announcement. This is a live competition involving market-sensitive information. There is an established method of communication to the House and the markets, so I cannot answer him and am able to say little on that point today.
I can confirm to my right hon. Friend why the east midlands franchise was awarded, with the rail review taking place. That was simply because it was considered  that with the east midlands franchise award and this one we could get the benefits to passengers before the work of the rail review came into play. On compensation in respect of the two stations he mentioned, I will look at those carefully. On the point about the compensation following the May 2018 timetable changes, there were some significant problems, but they were not everywhere. The issue was to get the compensation to those who had been most affected. They received compensation that I think was appropriate, but I will check out those two stations and write to him as quickly as possible.

Rachael Maskell: So here we are again: a Transport Minister forced to the Dispatch Box to defend the actions—or, in this case, the lack of action—of the ever-failing Secretary of State. Following four delays on the south-eastern franchise, we now know that the Government are planning a direct award. After 12 other direct awards, including on south-eastern, is this approach being taken to avoid the embarrassment of failure further down the road? Two monopolies, Govia and Abellio, are left in the competition to run Britain’s most beleaguered franchise. Following a litany of failures under Govia, highlighted in Chris Gibb’s report two years ago, and a lacklustre response by the Secretary of State, who, frankly, should have brought the franchise under direct operation, the travelling public are being failed.
What discussions has the Minister had with the trade unions, as the hard-working staff face further uncertainty, not least over their jobs and pensions? Will he also confirm that there is no intention to cut pensions to staff through this franchise process? Are the Government going to stall on all franchises until the conclusion of the Williams review, which is undertaking a comprehensive look at why our rail system is floundering? If so, when will this report be published? In the light of revelations this weekend that sensitive confidential information was leaked from Stagecoach into the hands of Abellio during the east midlands process, what changes has the Minister made in his Department to ensure that commercially confidential information is not shared with competitors in this broken process? How are the Government measuring past failure of these rail monopolies? In the light of evidence, will he then rule out their bidding, as he has for other companies involved in other franchises?
With 176 million journeys being made each year, how can these passengers have any confidence that they will not pay the price for failure—something they have had to endure under the current award? They are paying some of the highest fares in exchange for one of the worst services, so it is clear that this franchising fiasco must end. If the Secretary of State will not take back control of our rail, Labour will.

Andrew Jones: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. We are negotiating a short direct award to allow the competition to reach its end. This is not the end of franchising, which has been a significant ingredient in improving and turning around rail performance in this country. It has led to our having more services and passengers and at a greater level of safety than at any point in our country’s history. Franchising has been part of that success. This is an issue not of failure but of making sure that we get it correct.
Have I discussed the franchise bid with the trade unions? No, because the bids are assessed by officers of the Department for Transport, who anonymise them. It is important, market-sensitive information. Such information runs through a standard procedure, of which the hon. Lady should be aware; it operates in councils, in the Government and in devolved Assemblies, too. I have of course met the trade unions, and I was able to confirm with them that my aspirations for the rail industry include the careers of those who serve the industry. The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), asked about the same point in an urgent question just before the Easter recess. I do not want to see any cut to pensions; I want to see those who work on our rail services retire with secure and stable pensions. Nevertheless, we are talking about pensions from a private business, not something that comes from the Government.
The work on the Williams review is under way. I am sure the hon. Lady will have seen some of the evidence papers and heard about the emerging thinking that Mr Williams has discussed in some of the speeches he has made over the past few weeks. We look forward to seeing the output of that review. Franchising has been an ingredient in the turnaround of our rail industry that has been so fantastic for this country. The question now is how we take that to the next stage, which is what the Williams review is all about.

Damian Green: My constituents are as anxious as anyone about the reasons that lie behind this continuing delay, but they are even more anxious that the improvements we have all been promised under the new franchise do actually happen. Will my hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that the improvements, particularly the extra capacity on the high-speed line, will be available when the franchise is eventually awarded?

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend asks about how the bid may finally be judged. I cannot comment on the work in progress, but I can say that an invitation to tender was published in November 2017. It was the result of a significant consultation, to which there were 10,000 or so responses. I am as anxious as my right hon. Friend to get the benefits of that invitation to tender out to the constituents whom he serves so well, and as fast as possible, but I cannot give an answer today on who will win the franchise. That work is carried out separately by officials, away from Ministers, and the information is anonymised because it is so important and market sensitive, but his point will have been heard by all those in the industry.

Lilian Greenwood: The south-eastern franchise was originally due to end in 2014. The failure of the west coast franchise delayed that ending until August 2018, and now the direct award to Govia could be further extended. It is hard to understand why, if the Government still believe in competition for rail services, the Department for Transport seems absolutely unable to run a competition for this franchise. Will the Minister clarify how many compliant bids were received for the south-eastern franchise and how many were received for the east midlands franchise that was awarded two weeks ago?

Andrew Jones: The hon. Lady makes the point about whether franchising is dead; no, it is not, because of course we managed to award a franchise only in the week before Easter recess. As a process, then, franchising is working. Can we get the benefits out to passengers as fast as possible? That is of course what it is all about, but these are complex questions and it is appropriate that we take our time to get it right. On the number of compliant bids, the issue of pensions obviously attracted a lot of attention in respect of the east midlands bid. We have two pension-compliant bids for the south-eastern franchise and look forward to making the announcement as soon as we possibly can.

Jo Johnson: Will my hon. Friend assure me that this further delay to the award of the franchise will not hold up long-awaited works for Petts Wood and St Mary Cray stations to become fully accessible—something for which residents have been campaigning for many years?

Andrew Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I share his enthusiasm for the access-for-all process and the recent announcement of extra funds and where those funds will be targeted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I can tell him that design work on the stations selected will be starting over the summer, with construction as soon as possible thereafter. I know that he is anxious for the benefits to serve his constituents. So am I and so is the Under-Secretary of State, who I know is listening. She has indicated that she would be very happy to meet him to take the matter forward.

Rosie Duffield: Further to his letter of 10 April in which the Under-Secretary of State assured Members that robust scrutiny would be used in this decision-making process, can he please reassure my beleaguered constituents in east Kent that that scrutiny will also apply to the exorbitant fare rises, constant delays and disruptions, arbitrary timetable changes and removal of services?

Andrew Jones: I can most certainly provide the hon. Lady’s constituents with the assurance that she is seeking. We will obviously be focusing on fares. We want to make sure that the travelling public get a great deal, which is why we have frozen regulated fares in line with inflation for the sixth year in a row. It is also why, in January, we saw the launch of the 16 to 18-year-old railcard, which will come into play later this year. So will there be attention on costs and scrutiny of fares? Of course there will. We will be maintaining that. This policy, which has delivered its sixth year, against Labour’s intentions, will be continued.

Helen Grant: Will the Minister please confirm that the City Thameslink service from Maidstone East will still be delivered before the end of the year? It is desperately needed and it has been promised on a multitude of occasions.

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend has been a very diligent campaigner on this issue. I know that it matters a lot to her and to her constituency. She has been a real vocal champion on this issue specifically. However, this is also an industry-led process and we are working with it to  deliver the benefits as soon as possible. I cannot comment immediately on that matter because it is not part of this franchise but, of course, I will check the information and keep her posted on progress.

Tom Brake: If the rail review recommends that suburban services in the London area be transferred to London government, will the Government allow south-eastern suburban services to be transferred in that way to maximise integration of transport services in London?

Andrew Jones: That is a very interesting question. I would expect the rail review to make some interesting recommendations about devolution. I am personally a fan of devolution, but we had better see what it says before commenting on the outcome.

David Evennett: I note my hon. Friend’s statement today on the south-eastern rail franchise. I am, of course, bitterly disappointed that we have not made any progress on this matter. In the meantime, my constituents continue to suffer a poor service into London. It is also disappointing, but rather ironic, that, just like the rail service, all we seem to see from his Department is continual delay. As he is well aware, improvements are desperately needed to our service in the borough of Bexley—and not later this year, next year or sometimes never. Our constituents are paying more money for a poor service. What we are expecting is a decision so that we can look to a better future and the travelling public from Bexley have a better service. At the moment, they do not.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. He is a diligent campaigner on rail issues for his constituency. We saw that at an important level when there was the landslip earlier this year. He was a great champion in making sure that the voices of his travelling constituents were heard in this House. I cannot yet tell him when we will be making the announcement on the decision on who wins the south-eastern franchise competition, but I can tell him that I am extremely keen to get the benefits that the franchise will bring to his constituents. I will make sure that he is kept fully posted on progress.

Teresa Pearce: There appears to be a serious issue around rail pensions. The Minister has said that there are two pension-compliant bids on the table. Could he tell me whether the Department has made any changes to the franchise specifications in respect of pension obligations, and what conversations have been held with the Pensions Regulator regarding the deficit?

Andrew Jones: The Pensions Regulator is an independent body and the pensions that we are talking about are those of private companies, so the role for the Government is not a direct one. Operators are currently liable for the full pensions risk during their franchise term. These competitions—including the east midlands competition, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood)—included a risk-sharing mechanism with the Government that actually reduced the risk to which operators are exposed. Under this mechanism, the operators retain risks that they are able  to manage. There have been some changes, but they are about risk-sharing for the future; so there was a notable change in the franchises.

Helen Whately: It is disappointing that, like so many Southeastern trains, the south-eastern franchise is itself delayed. My constituents expect the new franchise to give them improved services, to reduce overcrowding, and to introduce Delay Repay 15, smart ticketing and flexible season tickets, which are all really important. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, although the franchise is delayed, these improvements will not be? Could they be introduced in advance of the new franchise, rather than our having to wait for so long?

Andrew Jones: I will have a look at my hon. Friend’s point. The key benefits that have come into our rail services over the past few years have come in through the franchising process, as it has brought in private investment. That investment has purchased or leased new rolling stock, which has meant a transformation across the country for the travelling public. My hon. Friend is as impatient as I am that the benefits that we are seeing come to fruition for her constituents, and I will of course work to deliver them as fast as possible.

Matthew Pennycook: The franchise specification promised extra capacity, new rolling stock, greater frequency of trains and 15-minute Delay Repay, but my constituents will now not see those improvements for at least another seven—perhaps 12—months. What specifically is the Department going to do to improve services for passengers on Southeastern throughout the period of the franchise extension?

Andrew Jones: We are working to bring the franchise decision to a conclusion as fast as possible, and to get the benefits that will come with that decision right across the franchise as quickly as we can.

Thomas Tugendhat: The delay to this franchise is not only a delay to the people of Tonbridge and West Malling, and to the towns and villages around the area; it is also a delay to a strategy that the Minister already announced—the 15-minute delay compensation. I do hope that his initial statement that this scheme will wait until a change of franchise will no longer apply, and that he will instead introduce the change from a 30-minute to a 15-minute delay compensation now. If we are to wait still further, it will cost commuters in the wonderful towns that I have the privilege to represent, as they will have to pay more for delayed services.

Andrew Jones: Delay Repay 15—a compensation system that will give any passenger who has been delayed by 15 minutes or more 25% of their fare back—will be a part of all future franchise awards. We have recently been able to make some in-franchise changes in other areas, such as on Northern and Great Western. I will look into my hon. Friend’s point. I am aware of how well this scheme has been received where we have been able to make the changes. It is not quite as straightforward as saying that we can do this immediately, but I know that he is hungry for that benefit and I will do what I can to help him achieve it.

Clive Efford: I do not quite understand how the Minister can anonymise the two bids when there are only two bidders, one of which is the existing franchise. Setting that aside, this franchise is fraying at the edges. There have been yet more delays this afternoon because of a broken down train. Is it not time that the Department for Transport spoke to the Mayor of London about London’s suburban services and sorted out this mess once and for all?

Andrew Jones: The process for the assessment and award of bids is handled away from Ministers and by the content of the bid rather than by the bidder’s name, so these things are handled in a way that is perhaps a little different from that which the hon. Gentleman suggests. I have had a conversation with the Mayor, but not on this issue. He came to the Department for Transport seeking a loan facility of over £2 billion to help with the completion of Crossrail. We were able to help with that. It is of course a loan that will need to be repaid, but the loan has been made and he is, I believe, drawing down on it. He needs to answer some questions about the long-term viability of Transport for London’s finances.
On the performance on the network, of course there is more to be done on every single franchise. I want to make sure that we have services that are on time, every time. Ninety per cent. of trains on this franchise have been on time over the past few months. When I looked at the performance figures earlier today, I saw that it was 97%. But of course nobody wants to have any delays, and that is why this is my top priority.

Tracey Crouch: Rail users and constituents of mine on the Maidstone East line and the Medway Valley line from Chatham are fed up with being forced to pay through the nose to use a service beset by delays, lack of information and poor-quality rolling stock. Continuous delays in deciding the next franchise provide no incentive for the current franchise holder to make any investment to improve services for those users. What can the Minister do to ensure that passengers receive the service that they pay for now rather than in the future—for which, like Southeastern’s, the timetable keeps changing?

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend has been a champion for her travelling public. I know that because she has made this point to me on a number of occasions, both in this House and in meetings outside. On the management of the franchise, there is, as with all franchises, a performance regime that is operated through the Department for Transport. Whenever we see franchises failing in any way, we take action right away. I say what I have said to other colleagues across the House: I am impatient to see the benefits of this franchise award out there as soon as possible. Consequently, I will be making sure that we get this decision made as fast as we possibly can, and I will keep her informed of progress.

Janet Daby: This is the fourth time that the award of a new franchise has been delayed. Commuters from my constituency and from others across the south-east have been facing delays, cancellations, and overcrowding on trains. The continued delay is preventing long-term investment and improvements, placing millions of passengers at a disadvantage. Will the  Minister therefore provide an update on the timeline for the award, be transparent about the reasons for the repeated delay, and outline a long-term view on the viability of the franchise system as a whole?

Andrew Jones: My view on the franchise system as a whole is that it has been a part of our improvement in our rail performance as measured by the number of services, the number of passengers, and the quality of journeys over the past few years. The benefits of a privately run industry have been profound. I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question because this is market-sensitive information. There is information that will need to be announced to the markets and to the House in the normal manner when the decisions are made.

Bob Neill: I happen to agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the benefits that come from franchising. Having said that, perhaps he will take this point in the spirit in which I make it when I say that if one was paying someone to discredit the franchising process, the way his Department has gone about it could not be bettered—it is an utter shambles. In order not to add insult to injury to my long-suffering constituents, will he return to the very fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)—that the very least the Department can do is to ensure that if the company seeks an extension to the current franchise and continues to get financial benefit, it shall be obliged to bring in 15-minute Delay Repay straight away, and not wait?

Andrew Jones: The issue for me is how to ensure that the trains are run on time every time, but when things go wrong we need a compensation scheme that is fair to the traveling public. I share my hon. Friend’s impatience to get the benefits that will come from this franchise award to the constituents he serves so well. I will keep him updated on progress, including on DR15.

Phil Wilson: As the Minister knows, the contract for the rolling stock for the London underground deep tube was awarded to a company that intends to build the majority of the rolling stock in Austria, having promised that it would be built in the UK. What guarantees can he give that the company awarded the new south-eastern rolling stock contract will build the trains in the UK and provide work for train companies such as Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency?

Andrew Jones: The hon. Gentleman is a great champion for that rail company in his constituency. He has told me about it on a number of occasions, and I hope to visit the plant shortly. I have met the company, and I am aware of the quality of its product. I cannot direct where a private company places an order. We are in an open market economy—we have competition, which delivers passenger benefits, value and passenger experiences that were never possible when this railway was nationalised. I am sure that those who are making the purchasing decisions will be aware of the point he makes and of the merits of British manufacturing.

Gareth Johnson: These delays are regrettable, but they at least give the Minister an opportunity to look again at the terms of the franchise. I was pleased  when the Oyster card system was extended to Dartford, to cater for my constituents. Does he agree that any new franchise contract should include a term to ensure that smart ticketing is extended beyond the current boundaries?

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend makes a wise point, as ever. Smart ticketing is a part of the rail future right across the country, not just in Dartford. The pay-as-you-go extension has been very popular across the south-east. The benefits of smart ticketing are profound, including convenience for passengers and the ability to change tickets more easily, and we are trying to ensure that they are part of all franchises.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister has referred to the Williams review several times. Keith Williams has already warned about the Government “micromanaging” the rail industry and driving passengers away. He has also said that the current franchise system is damaging to innovation. Does the Minister agree with those comments?

Andrew Jones: There are points in the current operation of the franchise system that can be improved, but micromanaging from Government is not helpful. The Labour position is to micromanage everything from Government by nationalising the railways, so there is—[Interruption.] There is a little bit of inconsistency in what the hon. Lady says.

Huw Merriman: My constituents will be disappointed with this delay, but I have every faith that the Minister will get this right. The Transport Committee has looked at the franchising process in a number of reports. It is very complex and detailed, and as a result it can be expensive and litigious. Will there be an opportunity to simplify the franchising process, so that we do not experience such delays when making decisions?

Andrew Jones: I hope that simplification of the structure of the industry, including the franchising process, will be one output of the Williams review.

Tonia Antoniazzi: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. I went outside into Parliament Square to speak to members of Extinction Rebellion who wanted to exercise their right to come into Parliament to lobby their MP. I am holding over 100 letters to MPs. What guidance can you give those people who are unable today to exercise their right?

John Bercow: I have been attending to my duties in the Chair, so I cannot comment on what restrictions on access to or egress from the estate have applied, either as a matter of policy or on account on the very large number of people who may be around. In so far as the hon. Lady is seeking to give voice to the concerns of her constituents and others who are campaigning on this subject, she has found her own salvation, because she has made the point, she has held up the letters and it will be on the record in the Official Report, and I think therefore honour is served.

SRI LANKA

John Bercow: Colleagues, in respectful memory of the 321 people slaughtered in the appalling Easter Sunday terrorist attack in Sri Lanka, including eight British citizens, and of the approximately 500 people wounded in those attacks, I propose that we now hold a one-minute silence.
The House observed a minute’s silence.

John Bercow: Colleagues, thank you.

Jeremy Hunt: Today, the flags in Downing Street and on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are flying at half-mast following the horrific Easter day terrorist attack in Sri Lanka. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the attack and the UK Government’s response.
On Sunday, multiple terrorist suicide bombings were conducted across Sri Lanka. Six explosions occurred simultaneously—three in churches conducting Easter day services in Colombo, Negombo and Batticaloa, and three more in hotels in Colombo popular with foreign visitors. Information is still coming in, but we know that over 300 people have been killed, and we know that at least eight of those, sadly, are British nationals. They include mother Anita Nicholson with her 14-year-old son Alex and 11-year-old daughter Annabel, teenage brother and sister Amelie and Daniel Linsey, and retired firefighter Bill Harrop with his wife, retired GP Sally Bradley. The whole House will want to pass on our deepest sympathies and condolences, as we digest a truly heartbreaking situation.
I spoke to James Dauris, the British high commissioner in Colombo, earlier this afternoon, and I want to put on record my thanks to him, his team and all the employees of the British Council for their dedication in extremely testing circumstances. One locally employed British Council employee is in hospital with his wife, both with serious injuries, and our thoughts are also with them and their family. Our travel advice has been updated and remains the best source of information for any British nationals or family members who have concerns about the situation.
Yesterday, I spoke to my counterpart, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, to express my thanks for the work of the emergency services in Sri Lanka, as well as to pass on our condolences to all the bereaved families. I also discussed what further support the UK might be able to offer. Her Majesty the Queen, the Prince of Wales and other members of the royal family have sent messages of condolence to the President and people of Sri Lanka, and the Prime Minister is expected to speak with Sri Lankan Prime Minister Wickremesinghe later today.
These attacks were a primitive and vile attempt to sow division between people of different faiths. Religious tensions have caused some of the bloodiest battles in human history, and it is sombre and sobering that even in the 21st century attempts continue to set believers of different religions against each other. Our response must be to deny the perpetrators the satisfaction of dividing us by being united in our condemnation of the attacks and united in our support for religious tolerance—  surely one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Just as after the equally horrific attacks on the two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, we must respond by bringing people together; that is the exact opposite of what the perpetrators intended.
It has to be said that the sheer brutality of the attacks was stark. One pair of attackers, after detonating their first explosives in a hotel, waited for people to try to escape before detonating a second device. The device destroyed by security services at Colombo airport was most likely designed to target fleeing civilians. The attack was complex, tightly co-ordinated and designed to cause maximum chaos, damage and heartbreak.
The UK will never stand by in the face of such evil. Today, we stand in solidarity with the Government and people of Sri Lanka, who have made enormous strides towards stability and peace following the conclusion of the civil war almost exactly 10 years ago. The Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism command has dispatched a team of specialists to Sri Lanka, including family liaison officers, to support the families of British victims and assist with the repatriation of deceased British nationals. A recent programme run by Interpol involved the training of 30 Sri Lankan forensic specialists and police officers by UK experts in disaster victim identification. We hope that that will be of additional support.
The Government of Sri Lanka have declared a state of emergency as the investigation continues. More than 20 arrests have been made, and there are likely to be more people who were involved in the planning of this attack still at large. A large amount of improvised explosive device material has been recovered, including 87 low-explosive detonators that were recovered from a bus station. There are no verified claims of responsibility as yet. So far, 40 arrests have been made, and counter-terrorism activity continues. The Sri Lankan Prime Minister and President have both said publicly that there will be a thorough investigation into the incident and whether information was handled correctly, and it is important to let that process follow its course.
To attack Christian worshippers at Easter, which is a celebration of peace and the holiest day in the Christian calendar, betrays in the attackers an absence of the most basic values of humanity. Just two days ago, the Prime Minister and I both noted in our Easter messages the dangers facing Christians around the world, 300 of whom are killed every month. In response to such acts, we must redouble our efforts to protect the freedom of religious minorities to practise their faiths, wherever they are. For that reason, the FCO has asked the Bishop of Truro to do an independent report into what more can be done to protect persecuted Christians around the world.
The British Government will continue to give their wholehearted support to the people of Sri Lanka, and I am sure the House will join me in once again expressing our deepest sadness and sympathy to everyone who has been affected by these monstrous attacks. I commend this statement to the House.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for the tone of his words, with which  I wholeheartedly agree. I join him in commending the work of the British high commission in Colombo. Once again, it has demonstrated that in the very worst of circumstances for British nationals abroad, our consular services offer the very best of support. I am sure the high commission will continue to ensure that the families of the British nationals who have so tragically been killed in the attacks get all the support they need at this time of unbearable shock and sadness.
I have full confidence in what the Foreign Secretary has said about the assistance that the Government are ready to offer to the Sri Lankan authorities, whether in relation to security and intelligence, or in relation to help for the forensic services. He has our support and our thanks for that.
I know that there are many questions to be asked about who was responsible for the attacks and what could have been done to prevent them, but today is not a time for those questions. On this day of national mourning in Sri Lanka, as the first of those who were killed are buried and as the death toll continues to mount, it is simply a time for this House and this country to stand with the people of Sri Lanka, with the British families and with those from around the world who have lost loved ones and to express our shared solidarity and grief at the devastation that they have suffered. It is a time to stand in admiration at the way in which the Sri Lankan people and their Government have responded to this attempt to divide them by instead coming together in peace and calling for the unity of all communities. We in the west must do our part to help Sri Lanka to recover from this horror by continuing to visit that beautiful country and showing the terrorists they will not win.
It is sadly apt that on St George’s day, when we mark both the birth and the death of Shakespeare, we are confronted with the latest example of what he once called “mountainish inhumanity”. That is the unspeakable inhumanity and evil of men who would walk into a group of peaceful Christian worshippers at prayer or happy foreign tourists having breakfast and blow these innocent people up, killing at least 320 people, including 45 children and an eight-year-old cousin of our good friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). Dozens are still fighting for their lives in hospital and hundreds more have received life-changing injuries.
When we ask how anyone’s mind could become so warped and depraved as to commit such an act, just as we did about the attack on Muslims in Christchurch last month and on Jews in Pittsburgh last October, we must not make the mistake of blaming religion. There is no religion on this earth that teaches that the way to salvation is blowing up innocent children or shooting people at prayer. We must also not make the mistake of saying that one act of evil begets another, that somehow this atrocity happened because of the atrocity in Christchurch. I believe that that is an entirely false narrative, one that excuses terrorism. We should never indulge it. Instead, we should call it out for what it is: an act born of pure, vicious mind-polluting hatred perpetuated by sickening, despicable individuals who do not worship God but death; whose only religion is hate and whose fellow believers in hatred and in death must be wiped from the face of our earth.
But in these dark and terrible moments, I see one shred of light and one piece of definite proof that the narrative that says that evil begets evil and we reap what  we sow is indeed a false one. That was the deeply moving statement made by Ben Nicholson, confirming the loss of his wife and two children in the blast at the Shangri-La hotel. I do not think there is any one of us who could understand what that grief would feel like. We would all have understood if Mr Nicholson’s reaction had been one of anger and hatred towards the people who had destroyed his family, but instead his response was filled with love for his wife and for his beautiful children. He rejected hatred, the hatred that had killed his family, and he responded to it with mountainish humanity: a humanity that no act of evil could corrupt, because, as Shakespeare also wrote:
“unkindness may defeat my life, But never taint my love.”

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary not just for the tone of her comments but for the very moving way in which she delivered them. I thank her for her support of the work of the British high commission, which is particularly challenging at this time. We are indeed giving help to the Sri Lankan Government in the two areas on which they particularly requested help: counter-terrorism work and countering violent extremism, of which we sadly have a lot of experience in this country.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that at times like this bringing people together with a message of unity and reconciliation is the only approach. I think people on all sides of the House were immensely inspired by the tone taken by the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, after the horrific attacks in Christchurch. I know the Sri Lankan Government are making every attempt to take the same approach.
I thank the right hon. Lady for talking about the extraordinarily generous response made by Ben Nicholson after losing his wife and two children. I also agree with her that these kinds of attacks, far from being religious, are condemned by people of all faiths and none for their utter depravity.
The final point I want to make is simply that while it is right that, in this House, we think about the eight British people who lost their lives, the vast majority of people who were murdered were Sri Lankans at church on Easter morning, celebrating the resurrection of Christ and life. They did not deserve to suffer this way and it is absolutely right that we remember them as well.

Iain Duncan Smith: I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and on raising the reality, which is clear to us all, that these attacks were planned to have the maximum effect on the single biggest day in a Christian calendar, when children are encouraged to be in the church, celebrating what has been the resurrection for Christians of Christ. Therefore, they would have known that the maximum effect would be devastating. Following what the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality is that the one thing that Easter teaches us is that it is about sacrifice for others and the forgiveness that follows? I wonder whether he will therefore ensure that no matter what else happens, we give our greatest support to the Sri Lankan Government in pursuing those who conducted this terrible attack but, at the same time, recognising that the Christian faith is about forgiveness.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for saying those brave words. It is very difficult for many people to think about forgiveness after what happened, but that is indeed an appropriate thing for Christians to think about, particularly at Easter. But forgiveness does not mean the absence of justice, and that is why it is absolutely essential that we support the Sri Lankan authorities in their determination to track down everyone responsible. We know that they have identified other people who have not yet been arrested, who they are looking for at the moment. Obviously, for the safety and security of everyone in Sri Lanka, it is vital that they are found, but I thank him for the generosity of his comments.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and join him in thanking the high commissioner, everybody at the high commission in Colombo and the rest of the Foreign Office officials, who must have worked in the most difficult and distressing circumstances over the weekend. I extend our thanks to the Sri Lankan emergency services as well for their efforts and work. At this time, our thoughts are obviously with all those who are affected, and we send our condolences to the families who have had their loved ones taken away in the cruellest of circumstances. That loss of life is always sad, but I have to say, I find it particularly heartbreaking how many children were killed in this attack, and the brave and touching statement from Mr Nicholson is a lesson for each and every one of us.
Savage acts of terrorism do not discriminate by age, but they do not discriminate by faith either. These attempts to sow division through violence at Easter, of all times, should be met with a response of peace and solidarity. Our message is that barbarism strengthens our belief in our common humanity, regardless of faith, background or ethnicity. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the work that is ongoing with the Sri Lankan authorities. I am glad that that assistance will be ongoing, but at the moment, our prayers and thoughts are with all those affected. The message from this place has to be that hate and violence will not win out.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The number of child victims, of many, many nationalities, is one of the most heartbreaking things to have occurred. What this event also reminds us is that when we talk about Christians suffering around the world, we are talking not about wealthy westerners, but about some of the poorest people in the world—it is only 8% of the population in Sri Lanka—and sometimes that fact has been obscured in terms of the priorities that we set ourselves as a country. That is what we are hoping to put right with the review that is being done by the Bishop of Truro.

Alistair Burt: I thank the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for the tone of their statements today. Through the Foreign Secretary and from experience, I express my thanks to Foreign Office and other UK Government personnel who will be involved in dealing with the aftermath of the incident. I thank the Foreign Secretary particularly for expressing so clearly the indiscriminate nature of terrorist violence. Does he agree that the best way to  protect the Christian community, or any community in the future, is to ensure that the rule of law is everywhere, that the best of intelligence is shared around the world, and that the understanding that an attack on one is an attack on all becomes universal, for there is no hierarchy in terms of victimhood?

Jeremy Hunt: Those are the kind of wise words that I would expect from my right hon. Friend, with whom I was privileged to work; he spent many years in the FCO. He is right to say that if we are going to prevent this kind of horrific massacre from happening in future, it is really a combination of the hard and the soft. The hard side, of course, is making sure that the security is there and that the security services are able to do their job to track down perpetrators and potential perpetrators. The soft side is what he and the shadow Foreign Secretary so movingly talked about, which is the message of reconciliation, because trying to set faith against faith is one of the oldest tricks in the book in human history. It is a great measure of human progress that in the last 100 years, we have massively increased across the world the amount of religious tolerance, but I am afraid that these events show that we can never be complacent.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words, his statement and for all that his Department is doing, and I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her moving words. This was a heartbreaking attack on Sri Lanka, Christians and peace-loving people everywhere, and we stand with Sri Lanka. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we face a real threat from those who seek to divide us and to drive our world towards conflict, where far right nationalism and pseudo-religious extremism feed off each other in a dependent, destructive cycle? We need to stand up and challenge that hate and the best way to do that is to stand together with love.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree. That is the fundamental challenge. When we are trying to answer the important question of how we prevent this kind of thing from happening, the most important first step is to properly understand the motives of the people who try to perpetrate these attacks. We do not know that at this stage, but it seems clear that one was a religious motive to try and set faith against faith, and one was a cultural motive to try and target western tourists who are visiting Sri Lanka. We have to be alive to both of those, but the shadow Foreign Secretary was absolutely right in saying that one of the things that we can do to support Sri Lanka is—obviously subject to travel advice, which is very carefully kept under review—to continue to visit a country that depends on tourism to show our support and to show that we are not going to be put off by this kind of terrorism.

Hugo Swire: Whoever perpetrated these hideous crimes and whatever their warped ideology, they are murderers, and cowardly murderers at that. Will my right hon. Friend therefore convey to the high commissioner James Dauris, his staff and to the Government of President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe that we want to show our solidarity and sympathy with our Commonwealth cousins at this extraordinarily difficult time? Will he confirm—it may  be too premature to do so—that many of those arrested to date appear to have connections of one sort or another with Syria? And if that is the case, will he look very carefully at extending whatever assistance he is giving to the Government of Sri Lanka to include offering similar assistance to the Government of the neighbouring Maldives, where there is also a problem with returning foreign fighters from Syria and where we have many British tourists on holiday at any given time of the year?

Jeremy Hunt: As I would expect, my right hon. Friend, being a former Minister for Asia, makes an important point. He is right that there are early indications of Islamist extremism that we need to investigate properly, and the Maldives is a very young democracy to which we want to give every support, so I will take his point away.

Graham Stringer: Mr Speaker, I am sure you will join me and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in passing on our condolences to the former Member for Manchester, Withington, Keith Bradley, now a Member of the other place, whose sister, Dr Sally Bradley, was killed in Sri Lanka. Her husband, Bill Harrop, was also killed.
Dr Sally Bradley qualified as a doctor at Manchester University, worked as a GP in Salford and served as director of public health and director of medicine in the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers a large part of Greater Manchester. Her husband, Bill Harrop, was a firefighter, but not just a firefighter, and had worked in Manchester and received a commendation after the 1976 IRA bomb, which went off in the centre of Manchester. No distinction can be drawn between victims of such crimes, but there is something particularly monstrous and brutal about people who dedicated themselves to public service being killed in this fashion. I spoke to Keith Bradley yesterday and he told me he was being supported by liaison officers and wanted me to pass on his thanks to the Foreign Secretary.
I finish by asking the Foreign Secretary—I know what his answer will be, but it is worth saying anyway—to redouble his efforts to ensure that people in this country and elsewhere are as safe as they can be from the diaspora of ISIS in Syria and elsewhere.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that behind all these tragedies are human beings and for his moving description of the wonderful public service of Bill Harrop and Sally Bradley. I pass on my condolences to Keith Bradley—and indeed to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who also lost a relative in the attack. I was privileged when Health Secretary to see at first hand the extraordinary work of the Greater Manchester emergency services in combating terrorism after the arena bombing, but I had not realised Bill Harrop’s connection to fighting terrorist incidents in that city. It makes it all the more moving.

Theresa Villiers: I join others in expressing my horror at and condemnation of the stomach-churning cruelty and appalling depravity of these attacks on innocent worshippers and tourists. Does the Foreign Secretary agree it is vital that this  appalling atrocity not deter Sri Lankans in their efforts to press ahead with peace, reconciliation and accountability following the long years of conflict in that country?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point; it is of course the bigger picture. The extraordinary change in Sri Lanka, compared with 20 or 30 years ago, means it is now possible to visit all parts of the country. It has made incredible progress in tackling terrorism, and that must not be obscured by this horrific incident, so she is absolutely right to say that.

Hilary Benn: As we mourn all those who died in this Easter Sunday massacre, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that ISIS has sought to claim responsibility, saying it had
“targeted nationals of the crusader alliance…and Christians”.
If that proves to be the case, does it not show that although its forces may have been defeated on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria, its ideology has not, and does that not make it all the more important that on this day and every day in the future we stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who stand for the right of all God’s children to freely practise their religion in safety and peace in the face of such barbaric hatred?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman speaks incredibly powerfully and I absolutely agree with him. Sadly, I doubt we will ever defeat the ideology of hatred, because it is a persistent feature of human existence, but we must be ready to stand up and fight it in whatever guise it emerges. He is absolutely right, too, that the territorial defeat of Daesh does not mean the ideological defeat of Daesh. We must continue to redouble our efforts in precisely the way he says.

Thomas Tugendhat: It was a privilege to listen to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and to the response from the shadow Foreign Secretary. They spoke with great passion and integrity. I cannot have been alone this weekend in holding my children that much closer after reading Ben Nicholson’s heartbreaking words and hearing of his enormous courage.
This issue offers a challenge to us here in this House, as so much of our debate in the last year or two has been inward-looking; we must look outwards, and in doing so we must not only support the people of Sri Lanka at this incredibly difficult time. Will my right hon. Friend also redouble efforts elsewhere and, in supporting Christian communities around the world, on the advice of the Bishop of Truro, also support other communities threatened by terrorism? We might not be world leaders in every field, but there are a few areas where we really are: intelligence, diplomatic support and training to important allies and partners is one area where we can make a real difference. I welcome the work of the Metropolitan police and the units already deployed, and I know there is much more he cannot talk about, but it would be good to know that support is going to our friends and allies around the world.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point and subtly alludes to the challenge we face at the moment. Preoccupied as we are in the House with one big issue, we should not forget that the rest of the world  looks to this country to show leadership in tackling these big issues and wants us to get back on the job as quickly as possible. When it comes to freedom of religious belief, it is important to remember that terrorism is not the only issue; there is also in many countries state-sponsored oppression of people who just wish to practise their faith freely. That is why our work will look at not only what we can do to prevent such terrorist incidents, but at how we can use diplomatic levers to stand up for the right of people all over the world to do what we can do in this country, which is practise our religion freely.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Foreign Secretary and shadow Foreign Secretary for their moving words, because the events and stories coming out of Sri Lanka are truly heartbreaking. To attack churches on Easter Sunday in this way, and the streets and hotels, is vile. They are right that the extremists and terrorists are seeking to divide us and that it is important to bring people together. Does this not show the importance of our international intelligence and security partnerships and our ability to use them in support of Sri Lanka and other countries in the international fight against ISIS and extremism? Does it not also show that this work is about supporting peace and saving lives?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Lady understands this area very well, from her former role as shadow Home Secretary, and is absolutely right. We in this country are lucky to have superb intelligence services and strong intelligence relationships all over the world, which we need to keep each other secure, and I can absolutely give her the assurance that, even though these things happen under the surface, they are a very important part of our counter- terrorism effort.

Ranil Jayawardena: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement.
This is so sad for Sri Lanka. It takes us back to the dark old days of which my right hon. Friend has spoken. Such cold, calculated attacks make us all think about the character and the thought processes of those involved—or, dare I say, the lack of any thought at all. As has already been said, to attack Christians on Easter Sunday was nothing short of barbaric.
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s assurance that Britain will never just stand by and has already committed resources to support the Sri Lankan Government, but will he go further, and say that Britain will support not only Sri Lanka but others in tackling this global threat? It appears that ISIS has influenced and integrated into domestic organisations in Sri Lanka without which these organisations would not have been able to cause such devastation.
Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that this event has strengthened his resolve—I know that this is a personal mission of his—to ensure that we tackle the persecution of Christians around the world, which too often goes unreported?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to give my hon. Friend a personal commitment that I want to do more on this front, and also to tell him that the United Kingdom is a world leader in countering extremist disinformation online. We have developed particular expertise over the past five years or so, and we share our information widely.
My hon. Friend is right to say how coldly calculated this attack was. To co-ordinate six explosions to take place at virtually the same moment required an enormous degree of planning. Those people knew exactly what they were doing. They spent a long time planning the attacks and finding the recruits to carry them out. We have to think hard about the kind of people who would do such a thing, and I hope that will mean that we redouble our efforts to ensure that it does not happen again.

Rushanara Ali: I join the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary and colleagues across the House in utterly condemning these terrorist attacks. My thoughts are with the victims and their families.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the focus on protecting religious minorities—in this case, Christian minorities—must be redoubled? The atmosphere of intolerance towards religious minorities in different countries—whether they are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or Hindus—has increased, and the international community must step up to provide that protection, as well as security for minorities

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Let me also commend her for the work that she has done in championing the rights of Rohingya Muslims in Burma; I think that my first contact with her when I became Foreign Secretary was in that connection.
It is important to understand that it is an easy first step to target and attack someone because of their religion, and that in very poor countries where many people have not had a proper education it is easy to whip up feelings in a way that can be lethal.

Stephen Crabb: I thank my right hon. Friend and the shadow Foreign Secretary for what they have said this afternoon. The freedom to practise a faith—in the community or alone, in public or in private—or to change one’s religion, or follow none at all, goes to the heart of what freedom means. Does my right hon. Friend agree that freedom of religion is not an optional extra but goes to the heart of our freedom values, and will he confirm that he will continue the excellent work that he has begun in his Department, which has made that a central focus?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Freedom of religious belief is just a form of freedom of belief. The fact is that states which try to control what people believe will try to affect their human rights in many other ways as well. One of the points made by the Archbishop of Canterbury is that the countries that have the biggest problems when it comes to freedom of religious belief tend to have the biggest human rights problems generally. That is a kind of litmus test of the freedom that people have in different countries, which is why it is such an important issue.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As many Members have said, terrorism does not discriminate between the rich and the poor, and will target people whatever their age, sex or gender, nationality  or religion. The harrowing vista that we have seen since the Easter weekend grows more sorrowful as each day passes, and as more stories unfold about the barbaric acts that took place in Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the book of condolence that has already been opened in the high commission, and I hope that he will encourage people to sign it.
Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, as the days unfold, he will examine the sources of all the financial support that flows from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries to political groups in Sri Lanka, and can he confirm that none of that support makes its way to radicalised groups or individuals there?

Jeremy Hunt: Rather than responding to the hon. Gentleman from the Dispatch Box, I will look into the work that we are doing and, if I may, write to him giving the full details. I know that we do an enormous amount of work in trying to strangle the sources of terrorist funding throughout the world.

Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend and the shadow Foreign Secretary set the tone for this set of exchanges. I think that more and more people are saying, as they did when the Provisional IRA was at its peak, “This has not been done in our name”—even people who may somehow be beyond those who know what they are doing in directing violence of this kind.
I spent Christmas with my family in a church in Sri Lanka at a multilingual service. During our time in Sri Lanka, we were very impressed by the intercommunal peace and harmony. It was clear to us that tourism matters a great deal to the development of Sri Lanka as it recovers from its past. I hope that people will soon realise that they can travel to Sri Lanka safely and enjoy helping it to put itself back on its feet.
We must do what we must also do in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries where people have tried to destroy the prosperity of others in the countries that they share.

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is also right to point out that there has been great progress in Sri Lanka, and great progress in religious tolerance. It is important to recognise that the extent of religious tolerance in any developing country is also a function of its political leadership. If there is leadership from the Prime Ministers and Presidents of those countries, it is possible to set the right tone when it comes to religious tolerance, but if those leaders fan the flames of populism or extremism, things can go wrong very quickly.

Seema Malhotra: Let me express my sympathy and sincere condolences—and those of constituents who have contacted me following these horrific attacks—to the families of all who were killed or injured, and to the injured themselves. Words cannot describe the shock that was felt around the world. The despicable terrorist attacks which targeted the Christian community also killed or injured people of all faiths and none. This was an attack on humanity, on the values of respect and compassion, and on freedom of religion and faith.
The Sri Lankan diaspora community, including many people in my constituency and across the country, will currently be experiencing huge fear, anxiety and great concern for their friends, families and loved ones. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that as well as continuing to provide vital security, intelligence and consular support in Sri Lanka, he will ensure that support is extended to the diaspora communities here, given what they will be going through, and given that they will also have a vital role to play in helping Sri Lanka to heal?

Jeremy Hunt: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady of that. I will be talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about what support the Sri Lankan diaspora community might need. I will also be signing the book of condolence in the Sri Lankan high commission tomorrow, and I hope that I will have a chance to talk to the high commissioner as well.

Julia Lopez: The interconnected nature of the modern world means that abhorrent atrocities as far away as Sri Lanka can hit terribly close to home. I am very sad to tell the House that the Nicholson family, who were so tragically caught up in the cruel and barbaric attack on the Shangri-La hotel, were residents of Upminster, in my constituency, before their move to Singapore. Will the Foreign Secretary join me, and the community that I represent, in expressing profound condolences to Mr Nicholson for the unbearable loss that he has suffered, and will he assure me that Mr Nicholson and other affected families will have access to the full range of consular and other support services in the difficult and dark days ahead?

Jeremy Hunt: I am absolutely happy to give that assurance. The high commission has been supporting the Nicholson family and will continue to support other families. I think the whole House has been touched, moved, shocked and saddened by what happened to that family, but also uplifted by the generosity of Mr Nicholson’s response to an unspeakable personal tragedy.

Mike Gapes: May I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for what they said? Unfortunately, this will not be the worst day we will have to talk about, because this Daesh death cult and its local affiliates will continue to carry out these kinds of atrocities globally. We must always say that this will not change our behaviour, it will not change our values and it will not change our solidarity with the people of Sri Lanka or elsewhere. We will stand resolutely with them in trying to get to the people who have done this and to stop other attacks.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his strong and powerful words as a former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I can only agree with everything he said. I think other countries around the world look to this country because of our, sadly, extensive experience in fighting terrorism here. They look to us for expertise, and they look to us to say and do the right thing in these terrible situations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I join other Members in passing on my commiserations to the people of Sri Lanka as they seek to rebuild their  lives after these despicable terrorist acts? Will my right hon. Friend pledge whatever expertise this country has to help our good friend Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to rebuild that country? In particular, will he support Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s call for help in finding out how the use of better intelligence might have prevented this attack and might prevent future attacks?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to do that. I know that our Prime Minister was hoping to speak to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe this afternoon. We absolutely want to support Sri Lankan efforts to get to the bottom of what intelligence they received—apparently, it did not reach the politicians involved, although it is important to say that, even if it had, it would not necessarily have been possible to prevent these attacks. However, we will give Prime Minister Wickremesinghe every help he requests.

Thangam Debbonaire: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone they have set. The Foreign Secretary mentioned that religious intolerance is about not just terrorism, appalling though it is, but oppression. Would he consider adding intolerance of those who do not practise religion? That is, in itself, a belief system, and a valid one, and it can also preach messages of hope and love. There are countries around the world in which having no religion is as dangerous as having the wrong religion. Would he be able to comment on that issue and on whether the Bishop of Truro’s investigations could cover it?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely support what the hon. Lady is saying, because the whole point about freedom of religious belief is that people should be free to believe what they want, and that applies to people of any faith or no faith. A fundamental tenet of a free society is that people should be free to come to their own conclusions.
The Bishop of Truro’s review is specifically about Christians. I hope the hon. Lady understands that that is because we have a concern that the plight of Christians worldwide has not had the attention that it needs, and we want to put that right. However, I will happily look into the issues she raises about humanist beliefs and other beliefs that are not attached to any particular religion, and write to her if I may.

Fiona Bruce: I concur with the statements made in the House today of compassion for those who have suffered in Sri Lanka this Easter weekend. Across the world, whole swathes of humanity—by some estimates 250 million people in 40 countries—are being persecuted, intimidated, victimised, terrorised, tortured, murdered, deprived of their livelihoods and driven from their homes simply because they seek to practise the Christian faith, and this is getting worse year on year. I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that one of the best weapons to prevent such atrocities is the systematic and determined promotion of religious freedom and for the steps his Department has taken over recent years to address the issue—particularly the inquiry he has called for, which is an acknowledgment that more needs to be done. However, may I urge him to ask his Department for International Development colleagues to do the same, to engage with the inquiry and to look at what more DFID can do?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for the passion of her words. Last year, according to the figures I saw, 3,000 Christians were killed because of their faith, and that was double the previous year. These are largely some of the poorest people on the planet. The oppression of Christians, just to deal with that particular issue, is often concentrated in countries such as Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan, where we have large aid budgets and therefore a significant degree of leverage with the host countries. One purpose of this review is to understand how we can better join up our Government Departments so that we really do use the influence we have.

Stephen Timms: I warmly welcome the Bishop of Truro’s review, and its importance is highlighted by this awful massacre. My constituent Councillor Lakmini Shah, who is in Sri Lanka, points out that many children have been orphaned as a result of the attacks, and there is no safety net available to help them—hospitals have been overwhelmed. What immediate relief can the Foreign Secretary’s Department and the Department for International Development give, given that many in Sri Lanka face a very difficult few months?

Jeremy Hunt: I will look into that if I may. I know that we would stand ready to help in any way we could with that situation. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question, because it has reminded me of something the high commissioner asked me to pass on to the House and, through Members here this afternoon, to their constituents. He strongly encourages anyone who is in Sri Lanka on holiday to contact their friends and family just to say that they are safe. Obviously, there are a lot of people at home worried about what may have happened.

Robert Halfon: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement. In Essex, there is a very strong Tamil community. Will he express his condolences to the Tamil community, particularly regarding those Tamils who lost their lives in this horrific terrorist atrocity? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, we could use this tragedy to bring about reconciliation with the Tamil community in Sri Lanka.

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to do that. There is a very large Tamil Christian community in Sri Lanka. The important work that has happened over the last decade to achieve reconciliation between Tamils and Sinhalese also needs to be about religious reconciliation and religious tolerance.

Paula Sherriff: Undoubtedly, questions will need to be answered and lessons will need to be learned, but today is not the day for that. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore reassure the House that the UK stands ready to help Sri Lanka with whatever it needs? Furthermore, does he agree that the world, and not just Sri Lanka, may need to reflect on the learnings that come out of any investigation, particularly when it comes to the persecution of faiths?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to give the hon. Lady that undertaking. I think a number of hard lessons will need to be learned about what happened, not least because it does seem, from statements that the Sri Lankan  Government have given, that there was some intelligence forewarning of these attacks, although we do not yet know whether that meant that they could have been prevented.
However, we are also keen to understand broader issues around freedom of religious belief. My own view is that the issue has been talked about a lot in the United States but not so much in Europe, and it is important that we have our perspective on it, which might be different from the perspective in the United States. That is absolutely our intention.

Andrew Griffiths: I join others in the House in congratulating the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary on the respectful way in which they have conducted this debate. We in this House rightly protect people’s right to worship in whichever way they wish, but the Pew report has stated that Christianity is the most persecuted of religions, and the Open Doors report states that the persecution of Christians is on the increase. This shows the challenge that we face. Every day across the world, Christians face violence, intimidation and death just for worshipping Jesus Christ. What advice would the Foreign Secretary give to people like me who have constituents who are missionaries in Sri Lanka and around the world? What practical steps, alongside the Bishop of Truro’s investigation, can the Government take to protect Christians across the world?

Jeremy Hunt: It has always been a brave thing to be a missionary, and I urge them to ensure that they are fully abreast of Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice in order to maintain their own safety. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a broader issue here. The Open Doors report says that 245 million Christians are persecuted every year, and we think that around 80% of the people who are persecuted for their faith are Christians. That is why the independent review by the Bishop of Truro is so timely.

David Linden: I will not be the only person in this House who finds 11 o’clock on a Sunday morning to be the most peaceful time for practising their faith, but until recently it has felt like the safest time as well. There is no doubt, however, that recent events in Pittsburgh, Christchurch and Sri Lanka have highlighted the fact that there are now attempts to attack people as they go to worship God, whichever God they believe in. The Foreign Secretary spoke about ensuring that we shared our experience of counter-terrorism, and I am glad that he is doing that with Sri Lanka, but the reality is that this now appears to be emerging in a number of countries. Can we therefore ensure that we share these resources proactively, starting with the 50 countries that are on the world watch list, to ensure that events such as these do not happen again?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When we have the Bishop of Truro’s report, I want to look at how we can build a coalition with other countries worldwide that have concerns about freedom of religious belief so that we can start spreading those lessons. One of the most important things we can do is to ensure that we express our views to any Governments, particularly in younger democracies, who might be tempted to resort to populist messages that can lead to discrimination against religious believers of one faith or another, and to make them aware of the dangers of that approach.

Mary Robinson: This was a horrific and cowardly series of attacks against Sri Lankan nationals, tourists and Christians who were gathering together on the holiest day of the Christian calendar to celebrate their faith. According to the Open Doors world watch list, 11 Christians lose their lives every day because they are practising their faith. What more can the Department do to protect them from persecution and to share the counter-intelligence initiatives that are needed to protect us all?

Jeremy Hunt: There are two specific things. When it comes to countering terrorism, we in this country have huge expertise and we share it with as many countries as we can in order to try to prevent terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, however, a lot of the persecution that the Open Doors report talks about is state organised and state sponsored, and in those cases we can use our diplomatic levers and those of our friends in other countries who share our values, to try to make it clear that that is not the right way forward.

Pat McFadden: I thank those on both Front Benches for their response today and particularly for their defence of pluralism. They outlined their horror, which we all share, of innocent people being attacked in their place of worship, where they should feel safe. I agree with the Foreign Secretary about the importance of religious freedom and of the capacity of different faiths to live together and coexist in peace but, given these attacks, there will be people even in this country who are now more nervous about their own places of worship. What assurance can he give to people here that the maximum measures are being taken to defend the pluralism and freedom of worship that we enjoy here in the UK?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I think he would agree with me that the extraordinary advances that humanity has made since the time of the Enlightenment have come about because the human race has come to accept pluralism as a mechanism for progress. However, that principle always has to be defended and I am afraid that it still has to be defended in this country. For example, we see some of the protection that is necessary around synagogues and mosques, although not yet around churches. We have to be eternally vigilant on these issues.

Rebecca Pow: I wholeheartedly join others in condemning this sickening action. It is almost unbelievable that people could be so callous as to do something like this on Easter Day. I believe that the Sri Lankan Government very quickly shut down social media straight after the attacks to stop the spread of fake news. We have been talking about what we can do to reduce terrorist attacks on the worldwide stage, and one way in which we can really help is by tackling fake news and the spread of disinformation and misinformation. Social media is such an easy tool for those who want to cause us harm, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State what he is doing about that. Is he speaking to colleagues about it?

Jeremy Hunt: What we call countering disinformation online is an area in which this country has been taking a lead internationally. We spent £20 million on it last year  and we have huge expertise. Unfortunately, we do not have to go as far as Sri Lanka to see these problems; they are also here in Europe—many of the eastern European countries are dealing with propaganda being pumped out into their social media systems, for example—and we absolutely do make that expertise available to our friends around the world.

Alison Thewliss: I should like to put on record my condolences to all those affected by this awful attack. In the practical sense of supporting the Sri Lankan diaspora in the UK, what communication has the Foreign Secretary had with the Home Secretary about the current status of applications from people from Sri Lanka for asylum or leave to remain in this country? Some of them will wish to have the reassurance that they are in a place of safety and that they can stay here.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Home Secretary was with me this morning when I briefed the Cabinet on the situation in Sri Lanka, but I will take up the specific concerns that she has raised.

Paul Scully: Social media in this country was used on Sunday by members of the Tamil diaspora with whom I work closely to give me real-time updates and to share their horror and despair. Social media was also used in Sri Lanka to encourage people to donate blood because of the shortages in the hospitals there. The people of Sri Lanka are now unified in their grief, whether they are Sinhalese, Tamil, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian or of any other faith or none. What more can we do to work with the Government of Sri Lanka and the international community to cement that universal solidarity as that island moves forward?

Jeremy Hunt: It is early days, but I spoke to Foreign Minister Marapana yesterday, and our Prime Minister is due to speak to the Sri Lankan Prime Minister this afternoon. Our offer is there to support them in any way possible, but one of the things that we can do is what this House is doing this afternoon. We have had a nearly full house of people from all political parties wanting to show their solidarity with our friends in Sri Lanka, and I think that that is something of which we can be rightly proud.

Mike Kane: I should like to associate myself with the comments of my Mancunian colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and to send my deepest sympathy to Lord Keith Bradley and his family today. There are 1.2 million Catholics in Sri Lanka who will be frightened to go to mass this coming Sunday. The Church aid agencies are saying to me today that the two priorities are security intelligence, to help the Government there, and expertise to help to rebuild family lives. The Foreign Secretary eloquently covered those two matters in his statement, but will he personally undertake to look at how well the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does in those two areas, to help to inform the Mountstephen review?

Jeremy Hunt: I would of course be happy to do that. Sadly, what happened in Sri Lanka will colour the review and make us consider the issues around terrorism  more fully. When we originally set up the review, we were perhaps not thinking that that would be such a big focus, but I think it must be.

James Morris: Having visited Sri Lanka several times over the past 30 years, I am acutely aware that what makes Sunday’s events even more tragic is the progress that has been made in that country over the last 10 to 15 years, including prosperity, national unity and the real prospect of it becoming a tiger in south-east Asia. Will the Secretary of State reiterate our commitment to work with the Sri Lankan Government and people to ensure that they build on the progress that they have made over the past 10 to 15 years, so that they can become that prosperous and unified country?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are the penholder for Sri Lanka on the United Nations Security Council, so we have a particular responsibility to ensure proper accountability and reconciliation as part of the progress that is being made. I thank him for pointing out that progress. In these dark moments, it is important not to forget that there is actually a lot of hope in the country given the progress that has been made over the past 10 years.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their comments today. Whether in a Christian church in Sri Lanka, a Pittsburgh synagogue or a mosque in Christchurch, the targeted murder of people at prayer because of their faith is a particularly heinous and hateful act of terrorism. Given the dangerous levels of intolerance in the world today, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is incumbent on each of us, as elected representatives, to reflect on the words that we use, the arguments that we engage in, and the way in which we conduct our political debate to ensure that we contribute to a world that is more tolerant and more inclusive, rather than breed hatred and fear?

Jeremy Hunt: I cannot really add anything to that, because the hon. Lady speaks powerfully of the responsibility of all Members, except to say that to do what she says is quite challenging. Elections are competitive things, and we get headlines by saying strong things that grab people’s attention, but we must always ensure that we stand on the right side of the line and do not foster the kind of hatred that we so tragically witnessed this weekend.

Alex Chalk: It is right that we should respond to this unspeakable outrage with a message of tolerance, calm and peace, but it is also right that this wickedness should not go unpunished. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our intelligence agencies, including GCHQ in my constituency, should be authorised to give their Sri Lankan counterparts whatever support is deemed appropriate to ensure that those responsible for this wickedness are brought to justice?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am pleased that he mentioned GCHQ, because it has done a spectacularly important job in recent years in helping us to understand the Daesh  networks and how they operate online. That has played a significant role in the defeat of Daesh in recent months, at least in terms of their territorial possessions.

Clive Efford: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for her response. They set a perfect tone for this exchange. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) just said, we must consider how we behave and set high standards for how we conduct our politics if we are going to show leadership at times like this. Intolerance can reach into all our communities. Yesterday was the 26th anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and such events bring home to us the need for us all to face up to intolerance wherever it is.
If the Bishop of Truro is conducting an inquiry looking specifically at the Christian faith and at how Christians are being persecuted around the world, we must avoid any suggestion that we are setting up one religion to be more important than another, because people may seek to prey on that. I know that the Foreign Secretary would want to avoid that, but we must be aware of it.

Jeremy Hunt: I entirely understand why the hon. Gentleman raises that issue. I reassure him that we support freedom of all religious belief; it is just that we think that Christianity has been slightly left behind for various reasons. More Christians are persecuted than those of any other faith, so we want to ensure that we are giving that the proper attention it deserves without excluding any other faith from our concerns.

Jeremy Lefroy: I also thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for what they said and the way in which they said it, and the same goes for all colleagues. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Sri Lanka deserve immense praise for the fact that there is freedom of belief in their country? We have already heard mention of Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and others who are able to practise their beliefs. Indeed, this atrocity was possible only because Christians were freely able to worship together on Easter Sunday, which is not possible in so many other countries.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a profoundly important point, and I totally agree with him. The perpetrators of this evil attack were trying to stop freedom of religious belief, and we must ensure that they are not successful.

Jim Shannon: I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his article in The Mail on Sunday in which he referred to the story about “God’s smuggler”, which he read when he was about 10 years old and I read when I was about 24 or thereabouts—perhaps that shows our age difference. He also said that Britain cares
“about those who stand up for the right to believe”,
and I think that he spoke not only for his Department and our Government, but for MPs and for our nation.
The photographs of children at Sunday school or people who had closed their eyes in prayer only to be murdered because they were Christians resonate with us  all. Such grief brings us together. We can pray, but we must also provide emotional support, because both Sri Lankans and others have suffered life-changing injuries, and some families have also been deprived of their wage earner. Is the Foreign Secretary able to help in providing the necessary medical help to those who have life-changing injuries? As he rightly said, the Christians are probably some of the poorer people in Sri Lanka, so can we also reach out and give financial assistance? If we can do those things, we can provide the innocents with the practical help that they so badly need.

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will consider any need for that kind of support with the greatest of sympathy, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the people who have had life-changing injuries. Around 500 people were injured in addition to the more than 300 people who tragically lost their lives, including a local employee of the British Council and his wife.

John Bercow: I thank the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary, and all colleagues who have spoken in the course of these exchanges both for what they said and for the way in which they said it. It is the right thing to do in itself, but I think I speak for all colleagues in expressing the hope that it might offer some very modest comfort and succour to the families and friends of those who have been slaughtered or injured in the course of these horrific attacks.

NORTHERN IRELAND: MURDER OF LYRA MCKEE

Karen Bradley: With permission, Mr Speaker, it is with great sadness that I wish to make a statement on the appalling murder of Lyra McKee in Londonderry on Thursday evening.
That evening the Police Service of Northern Ireland carried out searches at two locations in the Creggan area of the city, believing that dissident republicans were storing firearms and explosives in preparation for attacks. While the searches were being carried out, a crowd gathered, three vehicles were hijacked and set alight, and the police came under attack, with up to 50 petrol bombs thrown at police lines.
During the disorder, a gunman fired a number of shots in the direction of police, wounding Lyra McKee. Showing incredible bravery while still under attack, PSNI officers attended to Lyra as she was transported to hospital in a police vehicle. Tragically, neither those on the scene nor medical staff were able to save her and she died from the injuries she sustained.
I thank, once again, the police, medical staff and other emergency services for their bravery and commitment. On Saturday I had the privilege of thanking a number of them in person and of paying my respects to Lyra at the guildhall with John Boyle, the mayor of Derry City and Strabane District Council. As we signed the book of condolence, he told me the touching anecdote that he was one of Lyra’s first journalism tutors.
This is, first and foremost, a personal tragedy for the family and friends of Lyra who fully expected her to come home that evening. It is a truly shocking and heartbreaking situation for them, and we can only imagine the devastating pain they must feel—something they should never have had to endure. I know the whole House will want to join me in extending our deepest sympathies to her partner Sara and her family, friends and colleagues.
Lyra was a brilliant, talented journalist and is a true loss to Northern Ireland. She was a role model to many, and she always fought to make Northern Ireland a better place. Nothing we say today can take away the pain that her family must be experiencing now, but what I can say to her family, the people of Derry and the whole of Northern Ireland is that we will continue to strive for peace in Northern Ireland. We are behind them, and we are united in rejecting those who seek to undermine peace with terror. They have no place in our society and they must be dealt with under the law. The people responsible for Thursday’s sickening attack will never win.
This is also a tragedy for the community in Creggan and for the city as a whole. I am sure we have all been struck by the profound sense of anger at this sickening and callous attack. This was a young woman with so much hope and so much to offer, unlike those who have continually shown that they have nothing to offer.
It remains the case across Northern Ireland that small numbers of dissident republican terrorists remain intent on killing, but what we have seen in the days since Lyra McKee’s death is that the communities they claim to represent and seek to control do not want them.  Those communities want peace, prosperity and progress, and they want no part of the sort of mindset that leads to the death of a young woman simply doing her job.
To those responsible for this act of terrorism, we say, “We have heard your excuses and your hollow apologies. No one buys it. This was no accident. There is nothing that can justify this murderous act, and you are being called out for what you really are.” Church and community leaders have united their voices in condemnation, as have those across the political spectrum. Those voices of peace are strong, united and louder than those who peddle hate and division in a city with so much to offer.
Strong and effective policing has reduced the number of national security attacks in Northern Ireland from 40 in 2010 to just one in the whole of 2018, yet, despite this welcome reduction, vigilance in the face of this continuing threat remains essential. The current threat level in Northern Ireland from dissidents remains severe, meaning an attack is highly likely. As the PSNI investigation into Lyra’s murder continues. I urge anyone with information to pass it to the police, or anonymously to Crimestoppers, so that her killer can be brought to justice. The brave men and women of the PSNI and other security partners will always have the fullest possible support from this Government.
I have heard those in Northern Ireland calling for the political leaders now to come together, and I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the united display from the leaders of the political parties in the Creggan estate on Friday. The Belfast agreement has formed the bedrock of peace since it was reached just over 21 years ago, and it must be upheld and defended against those who would seek to undermine it. I intend to hold discussions with party leaders later this week to see what progress can be made.
Our clear and overriding objective must be the restoration of all the political institutions established by the Belfast agreement. Northern Ireland’s politicians need to take charge, including in the vital area of tackling all forms of paramilitary activity, but today is not a day for party politics.
Lyra McKee was a young, vibrant woman who symbolised the new Northern Ireland—a modern, dynamic, outward-looking place that is open to everyone, regardless of their community background, political aspirations, race, gender or sexuality—yet, last Thursday, she was killed in the most tragic of circumstances. It should not have happened, and it cannot be in vain. All of us must take inspiration from what Lyra achieved in her life in wanting to make Northern Ireland a brighter place for everyone. Lyra once wrote of being part of the Good Friday agreement generation and of the need to reap the spoils of peace. Our lasting tribute to Lyra must be to ensure that we continue to work for peace for the whole of Northern Ireland. I commend this statement to the House.

Tony Lloyd: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. The way the House listened to her today is significant in showing that we share her words and, importantly, the meaning lying behind them.
Of course we need to condemn, and we do condemn, those who perpetrate these acts of violence. It is sad that this statement follows a statement on the atrocities in Sri Lanka. In offering our commiserations to Sara—Lyra’s partner—and Lyra’s family, it is right and proper that we remember the brightness of Lyra’s life and say that it was a life well lived. She was most certainly a child of the peace agreement, and she was a young woman who lived her life in the way she chose, campaigning for the things she believed in. We should remember that bright spark and not simply the way in which that spark left the world.
I am struck by the contradiction between Lyra and the values she stood for and the values of those who chose to take her life, because that is the starkest contrast. Who represents the modern city of Derry? Who represents the Northern Ireland of today? I think it is the Lyra McKees, not the gunmen who mowed her down.
Londonderry is a greatly changed city over the 21 years since the peace process began. It is a modern city that is unrecognisable from the city of years back. Derry has also been changed by Lyra’s murder. The wave of condemnation from people of all backgrounds has sent a stark message to the people of violence who now find themselves isolated and out of touch with the mood of the people of Derry.
I also commend the cross-party solidarity, and it is significant that the leaders of the political parties have signed a joint declaration. It was important to see Michelle O’Neill and Arlene Foster walk from Creggan together. It was also important to see the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), a Londonderry boy, there. That is the leadership that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect in light of this tragedy.
As the Secretary of State has already said, this is a foundation on which to build a different future—a better future. She mentioned the police and the security services, and we know there is a paramilitary threat not only from dissident republicans but from loyalist paramilitaries, sometimes involving gangsterism rather than political violence. Nevertheless, that violence corrupts and pollutes the society of Northern Ireland. I ask without any great criticism, but will she review the way in which we deal with paramilitaries of all backgrounds? We certainly need to look at the numbers, but perhaps that is for another occasion.
In conclusion, the phrase “not in my name” has been used an awful lot in recent days, and this House should say that this is not in our name and it is not in the name of our common humanity. Our common humanity says that we stand together with the people of Derry and we stand together with the people of Northern Ireland. In particular, across these islands, we stand together in saying that we condemn those who perpetrated this act and we celebrate the life of Lyra McKee.

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and agree with much of what he said. He sums up eloquently, in a way that is typical of him; he is a very eloquent speaker at the Dispatch Box, and that was a particularly poignant and moving contribution. He is right to say that the whole House shares in the condemnation of the acts that took place. His comment about the brightness of life of Lyra was very moving. She did represent Londonderry. She represented Northern  Ireland, and she represented its future. As I mentioned in my statement, I was with the mayor of Derry and Strabane on Saturday, and he knew Lyra personally and had taught her; Councillor John Boyle said that Lyra was one of those people who wanted her name in lights—just not in the way that her name was in lights over the weekend, and that is the tragedy.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is definitely a sense on the ground that this is the end and people do not want to see this happen again. Those communities, which have been oppressed by the terrorists and the dissidents, and made to live in a way they do not want to live in those estates—they do not want to be part of that—are standing up and saying, “No, not in my name.” He is right about that. None of us can escape the symbolism of this. It was Good Friday and a woman, a journalist, an innocent was shot dead by terrorists. None of us can escape that. None of us can miss that. I also agree with him about the symbolism of the political leaders joining together on Friday in Creggan and being together. Great leadership was shown by all those political leaders; it was leadership that the people of Northern Ireland want to see, and I commend them all for what they did. We will need to talk about many things in the coming days, and I am happy to work with him on those, but at the moment, with Lyra’s funeral tomorrow, it is best that we reflect on the brilliance of the light that she shone and the future that she had that we will never see.

Andrew Murrison: The Viacom channel MTV appears to have been central to this awful tragedy, through no fault of its own. What can be done to ensure that media operators that, quite legitimately, seek to create content in conflicted situations of this sort are not involved, clearly against their wishes and much to their horror, in events of this sort, where there appears to have been a failed propaganda attempt by the New IRA?

Karen Bradley: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee. I know that he, as a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, is very familiar with the situation in Londonderry and the security threat the PSNI and security forces face every day. It is quite something to think that when actions like this happen in Londonderry it is almost normal—it is just what happens. The PSNI face petrol bombs and shots being fired at them. They sit in Land Rovers and take the fire and the onslaught. Clearly, we will need to wait to see, in the days to come, what effect the camera crew being on the ground had, but this also shows that a crowd had gathered. People came out to watch what was seen as being a spectacle. That just goes to show that these spectacles can have the most deadly outcomes.

Gavin Newlands: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I echo the comments that she and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) made. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I fully condemn this careless, cruel and cowardly murder. We send our deepest condolences to Lyra’s partner, friends and family.
Lyra McKee was simply doing her job at the time she was murdered, and it was a job she carried out with great skill. The New IRA has admitted its responsibility, saying that it was simply an “accident” and apologising  to her friends and family. But sorry is nowhere near good enough. Sorry does not bring Lyra back. Sorry does not ease the suffering of her partner Sara and of her friends and family. Sorry does not alleviate the concerns of communities across Northern Ireland about a step backwards to a past they had hoped to forget. Reading the statement, we would be forgiven for thinking that the past two post-Good-Friday-agreement decades simply had not happened.
This tragedy underlines what people in Northern Ireland have been saying for years now, and there is no possible alternative conclusion: the current stalemate has been going on for too long. So I am grateful for what the Secretary of State said in her statement about talks with the parties this week. Can she confirm what form they will take? Does she have a realistic goal as to when she thinks the Executive can be back up and running by?
I want to finish with Lyra’s own words, powerful words that highlight just what her murder has robbed us of. She wrote a letter to her younger self about growing up gay in Northern Ireland, in which she said:
“You will do ‘normal’ things. You will spend time with your mum. You will go to work and pay your bills. You will go to the cinema with your best friend every week because that’s your ritual—dinner then an action movie where things explode. You will fall in love again. You will smile every day, knowing that someone loves you as much as you love them. Keep hanging on, kid. It’s worth it. I love you.”
Poignantly, she also said:
“We were the Good Friday Agreement generation, destined to never witness the horrors of war but to reap the spoils of peace. The spoils just never seemed to reach us.”
Let us ensure that she is the last to suffer.

Karen Bradley: Lyra’s words need no comment from me; they are powerful enough in their own right. The hon. Gentleman asked questions about devolution. I would be very happy to talk to him and others about next steps, but I feel that today is a day when we should think about that family who are going to bury a much-loved partner, daughter, friend. They are the ones we should be thinking about today, and perhaps we can talk about the other things after that.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although any death is a tragedy, the murder of a journalist is particularly abhorrent? Is she aware that Lyra McKee’s death came on the very same day when the world press freedom index was published, which showed the UK rising by seven places? At a time when the Government are rightly championing the protection of journalists, this terrible act is a dreadful stain on our record.

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend and I share the honour of having served in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; it perhaps did not have the “Digital” at the time he was there, but we have both been Culture Secretaries and both of us were charged with ensuring that press freedom was respected. The work he did as Secretary of State, which I was fortunate enough to follow on from and take up the mantle of, helps us to be in the position where our status on the press freedom index is improving, but he makes a powerful point about what we have seen in Londonderry and the murder of Lyra McKee.

Nigel Dodds: I join the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State in their powerful words today in this House. Everybody is shocked and horrified at what happened in Londonderry just before the weekend. It has brought a palpable sense of real grief, shock and anger across the community at how a young lady who had so much to offer, Lyra McKee, was struck down in such circumstances. We had the appalling statement by those responsible that this was some kind of accident, as though it was okay to murder police officers. These are people—journalists, police officers and others—going about their proper business on behalf of us all, and they deserve all of our thanks and gratitude. Can the Secretary of State be assured that all of the political parties and all of the community, right across the board, are united in their absolute determination that we will move Northern Ireland forward and never return to the terrible types of incidents that we have seen on such a scale before?

Karen Bradley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. He rightly says that “shocked” and “horrified” absolutely sum up the feelings in Northern Ireland over the past few days. As I said in my statement, there is no apology for this—this was murder. There is no justification. There are no excuses. This was taking the life of an innocent, dynamic, bright, energetic young person, depriving her of her future and depriving her partner and her family of their loved one. There can be no excuse for that.

Maria Caulfield: I join the Secretary of State in expressing my condolences to Lyra’s family and friends and to the whole community.
When the chief constable of the PSNI last gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, he told us how difficult it was, without there being an Assembly, for him to know month by month whether he had the funds to pay for more police officers. Given the increased paramilitary activity, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the PSNI will have whatever resources it needs to keep communities safe in Northern Ireland?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend highlights one issue that we face in the absence of an Executive at Stormont. I have said that I am determined to see the Executive restored as soon as possible, but I also reassure my hon. Friend that the Government stand committed to making sure that the PSNI has the resources that it needs, and we have continued to make sure that that is the case.

Gregory Campbell: Last Thursday, Lyra McKee was murdered as she stood on the streets of Creggan in my home city of Londonderry. The following morning, a number of us—politicians, businesspeople, police and people from the local council—gathered in the city centre to discuss a response. The word came in that people were going to gather to show solidarity and opposition to the terror that had appeared on the streets the previous night. There was a decision to take about whether people should go. Those who know the geography of the city will know that I live on and represent people on the other side of the river, but there was no other side; there was only one decision to be made, and that was to go and stand in solidarity with those who abhorred such a deadly and tragic act.
Hopefully, the wider community will unite, because this week has been a particularly poignant one. It marks 25 years since Alan Smith and John McCloy were shot dead in Garvagh in my constituency. Constable Gregory Pollock was murdered by a mortar in Londonderry—he was the final policeman to be killed before the ceasefires were called—and his grave was desecrated for several years after his murder.
Does the Secretary of State agree that not just in April but in every month we must all stand against terror and murder, from wherever it comes, by whomsoever it is carried out and wherever it has occurred or does occur, so that we can deliver a better future for our people?

Karen Bradley: Hear, hear—those were very moving words. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman because the images of him in the Creggan estate on Friday—a boy from Londonderry, as he said—standing rock solid in solidarity with all parts of the community to condemn what happened were incredibly moving and important. Those images demonstrate more powerfully than many images could just how the people of Northern Ireland do not want to go backwards and want to stand firm together against the terrorists.

Paul Masterton: Lyra McKee was not just an amazing journalist and writer, but a passionate campaigner on several issues that cannot be taken forward in the absence of an Assembly. Nobody can have failed to have been moved and to have felt hopeful at the sight of real, incredible leadership from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland in response to these events. Does the Secretary of State share my hope that this can be some kind of turning point in the political process, and that people can continue to show that leadership and resolve to move Northern Ireland forward?

Karen Bradley: I agree with my hon. Friend: we need to keep seeing leadership of the kind that was shown last Friday and over the weekend, because this is a moment when people can make a difference and do the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland, who really desperately need them to.

Vernon Coaker: Does the Secretary of State agree that in the face of this horrific terrorist murder it is incredibly important that the people of Northern Ireland hear the words of the House of Commons, and that we stand with those brave people, including the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) whose moving words we just heard, with the DUP leader Arlene Foster, and with Michelle O’Neill? Their condemnation, with others, of that terrible attack at least shows that we all condemn it and stand together to do so, and that they will not win. In the end, democracy will.

Karen Bradley: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is quite right: they will not win.

Kate Hoey: I am sure that Lyra’s family and friends, and particularly her partner Sara, will get some comfort from the measured and moving words we have heard today, not only from the Front Benchers but from everyone. Does the Secretary of State  agree that one thing that may well come out of this, hopefully, will be the fact that we have seen such unity throughout Northern Ireland—from all of Northern Ireland—in total condemnation this act? We should also remember that the PSNI suffers attacks of this kind regularly. If things are not changing, we will see more people die. We must be absolutely clear that this kind of terrorism has to be stamped out, and that it will be stamped out only by the unity we have seen here today going throughout Northern Ireland.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady speaks powerfully and I agree absolutely with what she said.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I once had the privilege of being interviewed by Lyra when she was working on a book about the late Robert Bradford, who was Member of Parliament for Belfast South. I found her to be a warm, humorous and very talented young women, and I echo the comments that have been made in sympathy with all her family and friends.
One worrying aspect of this incident was the young people present who were cheering as the gunman fired those fatal bullets that killed Lyra. We see displays of men in paramilitary uniforms who belong to this organisation, walking openly in Dublin and flaunting themselves in Milltown cemetery in Belfast. If we are not to encourage the next generation to believe that there is something right in what these people do, we must surely do something to prevent these naked displays of terror and paramilitarism in public places.

Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. When I visited Londonderry on Saturday, I heard people say that they want this to end, that this was not what they wanted to see, that it was not the Northern Ireland they wanted to be part of and that these people did not represent them. The tragedy is that so many of the people involved are young people who were not even born at the time that the Belfast agreement was signed. They have been groomed by evil people who have put them in a position where they have ended up murdering an innocent journalist. We cannot allow that to happen. They will heard the unity of the House’s voice very, very loudly.

David Hanson: The Secretary of State said that there is nothing that can justify this act of violence, and she is right. This time it happened to be Lyra, a journalist, but it could have been a police officer or a citizen on the streets of Creggan. To support what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said, the key point is that these are proscribed organisations. It is an offence to wear material that promotes these organisations and it is an offence to support them. It is an offence to organise meetings and to have contact with them. There is a case for the Secretary of State, after the funeral, looking into what action can be taken on proscription and enforcement, to support the community and make sure that these people are outlawed among the community as a whole.

Karen Bradley: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will consider carefully all the points he made. He will know that the Fresh Start agreement committed not only money but resources to the tackling of paramilitary activity. One of the problems is that that agreement is a  responsibility of the Executive Office, which is another reason why we need to see devolution restored. [Interruption.] I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as he shakes his head, that this needs to be tackled and dealt with. He is right that tonight we need to think about a family who are grieving, but in future we need to think about such measures.

Alistair Carmichael: May I add my own expression of revulsion at this most brutal and senseless act and offer my condolences and those of my party to the family of Lyra McKee and to all those who knew her?
At a moment such as this, I always think that it is important to identify some sort of positive towards which we can work. For my part, I hope that for whatever unwanted and unwantable reason that we may find ourselves here today, everybody now in this House and throughout the rest of Great Britain—I use the term Great Britain advisedly—understands that the peace in Northern Ireland is still a very, very fragile thing and not something to be taken for granted. We have seen in the most graphic way possible that when politicians leave a vacuum the men of violence will fill it. When the Secretary of State speaks to the parties in Northern Ireland later this week, will she give leadership and make sure that, as a consequence of that, we see the political process back at the centre of Northern Ireland’s life again?

Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about politics in Northern Ireland. Of course, Northern Ireland is one of the places in the world that has been most transformed by politics: politics won over violence; politics won over terror—words won. People made enormous sacrifices, both personally and collectively as a community, in order to achieve the peace that we have seen over the past 21 years. He is right that it is a fragile peace; things can flare up at any time, as we saw last week. Hon. and right hon. Members have talked about the regularity of these kind of attacks and activities. Business as usual in Northern Ireland is not business as usual as many people in Great Britain would expect it to be, or would accept, and that needs to change. It is absolutely clear that we need to have devolution restored, but the lack of devolution is not the reason for these attacks. These attacks have been going on for far too long. There is no excuse for the acts that we saw; there is no excuse for anything that we have seen; and there is no excuse for the person who pulled that trigger and shot Lyra McKee.

Stella Creasy: In the days following her brutal murder, Lyra’s words have been shared around the world. It is not hard to see why. Just a few weeks ago, she wrote on social media:
“Derry is such a beautiful city. I’ve fallen in love with it over the past year, while falling in love with a woman who hails from it. Here’s to better times ahead and saying goodbye to bombs and bullets once and for all.”
Can there be no better tribute that we make to Lyra than pledging ourselves to achieving her dream in her name?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady makes such a powerful point, but the words of Lyra McKee are the most powerful. Derry is a beautiful, beautiful city. It feels ironic in many ways, but on Thursday evening, I had the  opportunity to sit down with my family for the first time to watch the final episode of “Derry Girls”. To see the hope in that series, which was set around the time of the peace process, and to go to bed to be woken by that devastating news was just so tragic for such a beautiful city and for such wonderful people who really do deserve better.

Sylvia Hermon: Sadly, I am unable to attend Lyra’s funeral tomorrow in St Anne’s Cathedral, and I know that other colleagues are unable to attend as well. On behalf of them, I extend our deepest sympathy to Lyra’s family, her friends, her colleagues who have spoken so movingly and so courageously about their work as journalists, and especially her partner whom she loved deeply and who loved her deeply—they should have been able to grow old together. Their lives are forever changed, and there will always be a gap at the table that no one else can fill.
I found the apology offered today by the New IRA absolutely nauseating. It cannot undo the grief, the heartache, the pain and the suffering of Lyra’s family, friends, colleagues and partner. It identified as the enemy PSNI officers—police officers—who courageously go about their business day after day and face this threat. They are not the enemy; they are there to protect the entire community—all of the community, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has said—courageously and impartially. Will the Secretary of State just repeat the words that I have long remembered from a papal visit to Ireland: “Murder is murder is murder and it is always wrong”?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady speaks incredibly powerfully. There have been some wonderfully moving contributions and hers is certainly one of those. I am sure that Lyra’s family and friends will have heard her condolences. I am happy to pass on personally those condolences as I will be at the funeral tomorrow. About her comments and her quoting of the Pope, “Murder is murder is murder”—absolutely.

Jenny Chapman: Lyra spoke about the dividends of peace not being shared. She was talking, I believe, about communities such as the one in which she was standing when she was so cruelly murdered. Does the Secretary of State accept—I know that she does not want to get into the restoration of the Assembly tonight—that if we are not going to see a restoration of devolution, she will have to find some other way, perhaps, of intervening, supporting and making a change in communities where young men are being raised to believe that those active in the troubles were heroes.

Karen Bradley: I am determined that we will see devolution restored because it is the right thing for Northern Ireland and the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland. I absolutely agree with the sentiments and the comments of the hon. Lady about the young people in those communities in Northern Ireland. She is right to say that those communities have been unable to benefit from the economic prosperity that we have seen in Northern Ireland largely because of how the dissidents behave and how they oppress that community. We need to see an end to it.

Hannah Bardell: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it should not take a leading light of the future to be extinguished for hope to be reignited. Seeing those politicians in Northern Ireland coming together in memory of Lyra was hugely moving. I hope that the Secretary of State and others in the Cabinet will do everything that they can, because we have lost a leading light. Gail Walker, the editor of the Belfast Telegraph and Lyra’s friend wrote of her that
“everything about Lyra was about the light.”
The LGBT community has lost a leading light. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) read Lyra’s letter to her 14-year-old self. It was so searingly familiar to me that I wish I could go back in time and read it to my closeted 14-year-old self, because I do not think that I have ever read anything that captured my fears and worries as a closeted teenager so well. Her light may well have been extinguished tragically at such a happy and successful point in her life, but I hope that we will all do everything we can to make sure that her legacy will shine on forever and that what happened will not be in vain; peace, as we know, is precious.

Karen Bradley: I agree with the hon. Lady. I do not think that there is anything that I can add to what she has just said.

Emma Little Pengelly: The outpouring of grief for Lyra from her friends and from right across the community stands as a testimony to the wonderful kind person that Lyra was. I had the privilege of knowing Lyra personally. Indeed, she reached out to me and showed me great kindness at a very difficult time in my life. That is the sort of story that we have heard about Lyra. That is the person that she was. I know that I speak for so many of her friends today when I say that I just cannot believe that we are sadly talking about her death and her murder. Her testimony stands in direct contrast to the violent thugs who killed her and those who have attempted to justify that. There have been disgraceful, repugnant displays on the streets of Dublin and Belfast, and propaganda on social media. What actions will the Secretary of State take to ensure that these organisations cannot continue to spread the hate and the bile and to recruit more young people?

Karen Bradley: May I pass my personal condolences to the hon. Lady as a friend of Lyra’s? It must have been the most horrendous weekend to have heard the news and still be coming to terms with it. I thank her for being here and making her contribution; it is a great honour to her friend Lyra.
The hon. Lady is right about the way in which the dissident organisations operate, using social media and otherwise. As I said earlier, the way in which they operate, convincing young people—young men—that the right way to behave is to turn to a life of crime, is almost grooming. We do not tolerate organised criminality and dissident behaviour, and we need to see an end to it. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss further what we can do.

Paul Sweeney: Lyra McKee was a child of the Good Friday agreement, and grew up in the hope that we could leave behind  the idea of sectarianism and the division it caused. I was particularly moved by her comments in 2014, when she wrote:
“The Good Friday Agreement has created a new generation of young people, freed from the cultural constraints and prejudices of the one before. It used to be that being a Unionist or Nationalist was an accident of birth. You didn’t decide whether you were for the Union or not; the decision was made for you. Your friends were drawn from your own kind.”
Lyra represented a future where the only barriers to friendship were of bigotry and badness; and she represented a future of hope beyond that. I cannot help but feel a sense of loss for what Lyra represents—the embodiment of hope for Northern Ireland.
I am particularly concerned that organisations such as Saoradh seed that sense of division and hatred. Indeed, they plan to take part in events in Glasgow this coming weekend. Will the Secretary of State liaise with her colleague in the Home Office to ensure that we do whatever we can to prevent that horrible, toxic organisation from showing its face on the streets of Glasgow this weekend?

Karen Bradley: I will be very happy to take that matter up with the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman’s words and sentiments are absolutely right.

Sammy Wilson: There has been a typically selfish, self-centred and “we’re the only people who matter” response from the republicans who have tried to justify the murder this weekend, describing it as a “difficult time for republicans” and blaming it on the PSNI by saying that it would never have happened if they had not been there. Will the Secretary of State give this House an assurance that, despite the fact that these people can rent a mob, rent a riot and everything else to try to disrupt life, there will be no let-up in police activity to search out the arms of these people? Will she also assure us that the police will not let up in pursuing and bringing to justice those who spread poison and hatred through social media or at graveside speeches, or who strut around the streets in illegal paramilitary parades?

Karen Bradley: My conversations with the police officers of the PSNI, including at the Strand Road police station on Saturday, have given me absolute reassurance that the PSNI is determined to take those steps, and that there will be no let-up.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I echo the words of the Secretary of State and pay condolences on behalf of my party to the family and friends of Lyra McKee. I am sure that the Secretary of State values the need to accord safety to journalists bringing truth from conflicts. Following this horrific attack, would she consider working with the Foreign Secretary to propose a UN convention for the protection of journalists worldwide, to ensure that reporters in conflict zones are not treated as combatants?

Karen Bradley: I would be very happy to take that matter up with the Foreign Secretary.

Gavin Robinson: I thank the Secretary of State for the calm and thoughtful way in which she has led proceedings on this statement, and the way in which she reflected on the life of Lyra McKee,  her contribution to the community in Northern Ireland and her sense of purpose in dismissing the view that political vacuums lead to violence. In the four years that I have been a Member of Parliament, we have seen the Provisional IRA murder a constituent of mine, Kevin McGuigan; the New IRA murder a constituent of mine, Adrian Ismay; and, within the last two months, the Ulster Voluntary Force murder a constituent of mine, Ian Ogle. The Secretary of State was right that what happened on Thursday night/Friday morning should not have happened, and she was right to say that it cannot be in vain. But does she recognise that that is a call to action, that we need to see action and that the Democratic Unionist party stands ready for it?

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The conversations that I have had with the political leaders across Northern Ireland over the last few days indicate that all political parties are ready for that call to action. As I said earlier, tonight we need to think about a family who are grieving, but we absolutely have to ensure that we get political leadership back into Stormont, because it is what the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve, and it is what Lyra would want to see.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her comments. Last week—in 2019—the New IRA murdered Lyra McKee in an indiscriminate shooting, depriving Northern Ireland and the whole world of a magnificent talent. She was an innocent bystander. We offer our sincere condolences to her partner, her mother and her family.
An apology from the dissident IRA is, of course, meaningless; it means nothing. I am sorry to say that the fact of the matter is that, unfortunately, they will kill again and they will say sorry again, and it will not mean anything to them. I remind the Secretary of State and the House of the murder of Joanne Mathers some 38 years ago, in 1981. This is the same IRA. There are new recruits—different people—pulling the trigger, but it is the same old men behind, directing operations. Joanne Mathers left behind her husband Lowry and her son Shane. Struck down for being a census worker, Joanne was a legitimate target as far as the IRA were concerned, and they deprived that family of a wife and a mother.
Will the Secretary of State give this House an important assurance? After the murder of Lyra McKee, 140 people gave evidence to the PSNI. Although we are pleased to see that an investigation is ongoing, is it too much to ask—for the husband and son of Joanne Mathers—that another investigation be reopened to ensure that those who perpetrated the murder of Joanne in 1981, the same as they did in 2019, are held accountable for their actions?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman made a number of points, the final of which related to the investigation of previous atrocities and murders. He will know that we have conducted a consultation into setting up the institutions that were agreed in the Stormont House agreement. We will publish our findings from that consultation shortly, but I would be very happy to sit down with him and work through where we are on that.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I too express my personal condolences to the family of Lyra McKee—to her nearest and dearest, her loved ones, her partner, her  friends and her colleagues? Grief is an awful bitter cup of which to taste, and no doubt the family feel that tragedy at the moment.
Lyra was on one of the first “Lessons from Auschwitz” visitations run out of Northern Ireland by the Holocaust Educational Trust; she took part just a few years ago. I understand from the leader of that group, whom I was in communication with this morning, that Lyra was clearly moved by her visit to Auschwitz, where she learned the vital lesson that people want to live for their beliefs, not to be murdered because of them.
Humanity has taken a terrible blow in the last few days and over this Easter weekend. That humanity is unbowed by terrorism, but it is only unbowed if we take action, and the actions that have been called for across this Chamber tonight will eventually fall to the Secretary of State. We cannot continue just to hope that something will happen. There has got to be more than words. The Secretary of State will have to take brave actions in terms of calling the Assembly together and in terms of putting it up to those parties reluctant to take action to either form a Government or not form a Government. That will fall to the Secretary of State.
The 17, 18 and 19-year-olds have no excuses. They do not have years of discrimination, and they have never known a terrorism war or mass unemployment. They have no excuses, yet there are people around them who will try to make those excuses. Pretty soon there will be no excuses for no action by this Government. We need action and we need an Assembly back; and you, Secretary of State, have to play your role in achieving that.

Karen Bradley: I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that I am determined that we will see the Executive re-formed. I will come to this House to talk about that at an appropriate time. I think that tonight, as I said earlier, is a moment for us to reflect on the life of Lyra McKee, but also, as the hon. Gentleman said, to reflect on the fact that this weekend we have seen the most heinous, barbarous acts across the world, reminding all of us of just how precious human life is. That is something   that none of us wants to see, particularly over an Easter weekend. I, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, am determined that we will take the measures that we need to in Northern Ireland to ensure that it does not happen again.

Martin Docherty: I thank the Secretary of State for her words and pass on my own condolences to Lyra’s partner and the rest of her family, but also, especially, to the cross-community LGBT community in Northern Ireland on the loss of such an important figure in their movement to equality in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that to see, the other day, the political leadership of Northern Ireland, from the Democratic Unionist party to Sinn Féin and others, including the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), coming together gives us hope that the Good Friday agreement will continue for another 21 years.

Karen Bradley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. What has been achieved in the past 21 years in Northern Ireland is absolutely remarkable. We cannot go backwards. We cannot allow the men of violence to win. We have to stand united. That is what we saw on Friday, when political leaders from across the community stood united in Creggan. I am absolutely determined that we will build on that and that we will see not just, as he said, 21 years but much, much longer for the people of Northern Ireland to enjoy peace, prosperity and a future following the Belfast-Good Friday agreement.

John Bercow: Colleagues, for the second time today it is my privilege to thank all Members, from the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State downwards, for both the content and the tone of what they said. Those words have been sincere and powerful, and therefore valid in and of themselves. If, in addition to those virtues, the words that colleagues have expressed offer some modest comfort to Lyra’s partner, her family and all those who knew and admired her, and everyone who believes in the triumph of peace over war and love over hate, that makes them additionally worth while. Thank you.

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

Claire Perry: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the current climate change protests and on our climate change policy. I apologise to Members of the House if we are covering ground that we covered extensively earlier, but I think it is a subject that will bear as much scrutiny as we care to give it.
Colleagues will be aware that public concern about climate change has grown to levels never seen before. In recent weeks, it has been incredibly powerful to see people of all generations, across the world, voicing their concerns about a warming climate and demanding a global response to this global crisis. We have heard loud calls today that we should declare a climate emergency. My answer to that is that we can say words from the Dispatch Box all we like; what counts is actions. I hope to set out the many actions that we are taking that have enjoyed cross-party support. My fervent hope is that we will continue to tackle this enormous crisis in that spirit.
There is no doubt that climate change is the most profound environmental challenge facing the world today, and one where more action is urgently needed. We should not shy away from that fact; we must recognise it. We welcome the strong and growing pressure for action to cut our emissions, but we should also ensure that, while we acknowledge the scale of the challenge ahead, we try as hard as we can to build consensus around change so that communities across the UK and, indeed, across the world feel secure, optimistic and involved in our shifts to decarbonise the economy.
As I said earlier today, we should be talking about hope, not fear, communicating the progress that we have made globally and that we have made here in the UK. That demonstrates that this urgent action to decarbonise the economy can comfortably sit alongside opportunity, growth and employment. The Government entirely accept, and I accept, that concerted action—more action—at national and international levels is urgently required. However, I still feel that we must focus on the fact—because it shows that this is possible—that we have shown real leadership in the UK thanks to the cross-party consensus that we have forged on this since the passage of our world-leading Climate Change Act 2008, over a decade ago.
I want to update colleagues on this progress and to outline priorities. Again, I hope that Members will forgive me if I cover some of the ground that we covered extensively earlier. In 2008, we were the first country to introduce legally binding long-term emissions reduction targets. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was very instrumental in bringing that legislation forward, but it also enjoyed strong cross-party support. For me, the Climate Change Act has been an absolutely seminal piece of legislation, because I am one of the few Ministers in the world who can stand here with high ambition and high aspirations as well as a legally binding set of budgets that we have to report on to Parliament. It is a great way of ensuring the climate action survives the political cycle, and it has delivered. Since 1990, as many Members will know, we have cut our emissions in the UK by 42% while growing the economy by 72%. We are independently assessed as leading the G20 in decarbonisation since 2000.
People talk a lot about the disparity between territorial emissions and consumption emissions. I invite Members to consider the latest data that shows that our greenhouse gas emissions, on a consumption basis, fell by 21% between 2007 and 2016. Indeed, they fell by 6% year on year—in the year to 2016. [Interruption.] It is true—that is the data. I would be very happy to write to all Members and share it with them.

Barry Sheerman: Even a little Swedish girl can see it’s not true.

Claire Perry: Well, again, I would be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the data and copy in Ms Thunberg.
Across the UK, almost 400,000 people are working in low-carbon jobs and their supply chains. It is a sector that is bigger than aerospace and is growing at a factor of two or three times the mainstream economy. We have continued to be active on the international stage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) was the Minister who carried the baton at the Paris climate change talks, which were so instrumental in the world coming together, as it did previously in the Montreal protocol, to show that there is concerted international support on action to tackle these enormous international challenges. COP24 took place last December in the Polish city of Katowice—a city where you could taste the hydrocarbons in the air. That is what happens when you burn coal; it must have been what London was like in the 1950s. At that conference, we in the UK—I pay tribute to my excellent officials—helped to drive the work of progressive groups and secured global agreement on a robust rulebook that brings the Paris agreement to life. If you cannot measure it, Madam Deputy Speaker, you cannot manage it. We are continuing to take targeted and impactful actions to support ambition internationally through promoting global alliances and collaborations, from the Powering Past Coal Alliance—which now has over 80 members that, like the UK, are committed to rapidly ending the use of coal as a source of electricity generation—to the Carbon Neutrality Coalition.
I was frequently asked this afternoon, “What are some of things you have done in the last six months?” so I thought I would focus on a few choice morsels to share with colleagues. Colleagues will, I am sure, be sick of me waving around the “Clean Growth Strategy” document that we published in November 2017. We will continue to do that, because it is one of the most comprehensive documents that any Government across the world have put out, detailing how we will take decarbonisation action across the economy. To date, we have acted on the vast majority of those actions. I will highlight some of them.
Only last month, I launched the offshore wind sector deal, including a £250 million growth partnership with investors to ensure that we will continue to invest in the North sea—the best place in the world for offshore wind. We will, crucially, drive up the UK content of that nascent industry to over 60%, and we will ensure that the industry employs at least 30% women by 2030. This industry is regenerating coastal communities right around the UK. It is one in which we lead the world, and we will continue to do so.
In the spring statement, the Chancellor introduced the future homes standard, which will require all new homes to have low-carbon heating systems and world-leading levels of energy efficiency by 2025. That will radically transform house building in constituencies such as mine, where most homes are not connected to the gas grid. He also announced that we will increase the proportion of green gas used in the grid, in a bid to drive down the carbon profile of the hard-to-decarbonise heating network.
Only this Easter weekend, we had the longest run ever in this country of no coal contributing to power generation on the grid. When many of us were elected to this House, coal contributed 40% of our electricity. Our unilateral policies, including a carbon tax and emissions targets, have led us to do something utterly transformational that other European countries have been unable so far to replicate. We also continue to contribute internationally. We are one of the largest donors of overseas development assistance, with more than £6 billion committed in this Parliament. In January, UK Climate Investments announced almost £30 million of investment in a dedicated African renewable energy company, to try to make projects marketable and investable in much of the developing world, so that those countries never have to go through a high-carbon stage in their growth cycle.
Action is being taken not just in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but across Government. We have published the ambitious 25-year environment plan and kick-started the creation of a vast northern forest, which will see 50 million trees planted from Liverpool to Hull. Tree planting is one of the most cost-effective ways to sequester carbon and improve soil conditions, as colleagues will know. Our new resources and waste strategy outlines steps to reform the packaging producer responsibility system, introducing a deposit return scheme and food waste collection scheme.
We should celebrate those actions, not to imply that we are in any way complacent or do not need to go further much more rapidly, but to demonstrate that this is a win-win for both the planet and future generations’ jobs and prosperity. As colleagues will know, last year we celebrated our first ever Green Great Britain Week, and I can announce that we will continue that process annually, for the second time on 4 November this year. We look forward to the celebrations and challenges around that.
We have not shied away from our responsibility. That is why, after the publication of the chilling Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change 1.5° C report, we were the first industrial economy to ask our Committee on Climate Change for advice on our long-term targets, and particularly a net zero target. I look forward to receiving its advice on 2 May and will engage with colleagues across the House on our next steps in the light of that. It is worth pointing out that the last time we asked for this advice, the committee told us it was not feasible to do from either a technological or cost point of view, so it will be extremely interesting to see what has changed and how we can rise to that challenge.
I have the utmost respect for those who are pushing for stronger action to address the risk of uncontrolled climate change. The right to protest peacefully is a long-standing tradition in this country and a vital  foundation of our democracy, and it has been good to see that the demonstrations have by and large been good-natured, and the policing response has been sensible and proportionate. I welcome the passion and fervour of the protestors and their constant reminder of our duty to raise our eyes from the next few years of conversations about our relationship with Europe, to think about the long-term challenges we face. I hope that those who have taken their passion public will continue to express their views without disrupting the daily lives of ordinary people, endangering the safety of the public or undermining the consensus that I strongly believe we will need to support further, bolder action.
We must work together to solve the challenge of climate change—in this House, in the other place, in classrooms and boardrooms across the UK, in international negotiating huddles, in homes and throughout civil society—and to deliver the broad, just and progressive action on climate change that we urgently need.

Barry Gardiner: Mr Speaker has graciously allowed both an urgent question and statement on climate change today. That is unique in my remembrance, but it is uniquely appropriate, given the visit of Greta Thunberg to the House today. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Speaker for that.
In our earlier discussion, we focused almost exclusively on emissions reduction and energy policy, so I would like to start by asking the Minister to enlighten the House on the other aspects of our climate change policy that received less attention. Let us start with the national adaptation plan. The Minister will know that, of the 56 climate risks and opportunities identified by the Committee on Climate Change, 27 simply do not feature in the Government’s plan. Why is there no word on the transition for flood-affected areas ahead of the withdrawal of Flood Re? Why is there nothing on the dangers to elderly people’s health from overheating in summer?
Even where targets are set, there is a record of failure. The woodland cover target calls for 5,000 hectares of new plantation every year, so why is the rate so far only 1,500 hectares—less than a third? Has the Minister examined the work of Professor Ian Bateman on the differential natural capital values of such plantation depending on its location in relation to urban areas? What account is she taking of that? Over the last two years, increasingly frequent severe weather events have cost our economy £1.5 billion a year. In 2016, the Government acknowledged the increased risk of flooding and coastal erosion and accepted that the current levels of adaptation were inadequate. They promised to update their flooding and coastal erosion management strategy by 2019; 2019 is here so where is the updated strategy?
We naturally focus on the impacts on human communities, but the impact on our biodiversity is devastating. It is only through a coherent and comprehensive network of protected areas that our biodiversity will not suffer further loss. What does the Government’s climate strategy do to restore the 50% cut since 2010 to the income of Natural England, which is responsible for monitoring and maintaining that network?
The Minister said in her response to the urgent question that she does not see the value of declaring a climate emergency. The value is this: it tells the truth.  On emissions reduction, the truth is that we are making some progress. I acknowledge and welcome that, but the full, honest truth is that we are not making progress fast enough. The Government’s own statistics show that. The fourth carbon budget is set at a limit of 1,950 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, but current policies are off track, projecting an overshoot of 5.6%. To counteract that overshoot, we will have to reduce emissions even further during the fifth carbon budget period. Because of that overshoot, we will need to reduce emissions by 334 million tonnes. Current policies leave us only halfway between where we expect to be at the end of the fourth carbon budget and where we need to be by the end of the fifth.
The Government have rightly asked the Committee on Climate Change for its advice on reaching net zero emissions, and I welcome the Minister’s assurance earlier that she will bring the Government’s response back to the House expeditiously. But I gently make the point to her that if we are already off track to meet our existing targets, we need urgent action to get anywhere close to meeting net zero.
The Minister spoke earlier of cross-party support on climate change. It already exists: the Labour party, the Green party, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru all agree that we need to declare a climate emergency. We would love it if the Conservatives joined us. Will they? If we are to stand any chance of winning the battle against climate change, we must work together over the decades ahead to ensure that we are cutting our greenhouse gas emissions at the scale and pace demanded by the science.
Labour has already committed to enshrining a net zero emissions target in law, as have a number of other parties. Indeed, more than 190 Members joined together in a remarkable display of cross-party support for climate action in signing a letter championed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) asking the Government to adopt a net zero target. Will the Minister commit today to taking whatever action the Committee on Climate Change recommends when it publishes its report and to enshrining the new net zero target in law? If the Minister were fully to accept the recommendations that the Committee on Climate Change report put forward, I give her this commitment: we on the Labour Benches will work as closely as possible with her and all colleagues across this House to ensure that we get a net zero climate target passed into law before the summer recess.
As the climate protestors have told us, time is of the essence and we cannot afford to let this important piece of legislation be delayed any longer than strictly necessary. The clean growth strategy that is supposed to meet those budgets is simply not fit to do so, and once we have enshrined a net zero target, the clean growth strategy will be out of date. Does the Minister therefore agree that we need a new, more ambitious strategy? There is no shame in recognising that.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time, but I will allow him to conclude rather than cut him off immediately.

Barry Gardiner: That is very gracious of you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to exceed the time that the Minister took.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands: the Minister has rather more time on a statement than the Opposition spokesperson.

Barry Gardiner: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Earlier, the Minister spoke of the need to consider our international impacts: 97% of UK Export Finance support to energy in developing countries goes to fossil fuels, which is a subsidy to dirty, polluting energy worth nearly £5 billion. Will she look at that? We need even greater ambition and action if we are to inspire others in our bid to host next year’s UN climate change conference here in the UK, and my party will whole- heartedly give the Government its support to achieve that bid.

Claire Perry: I see many colleagues standing, but I thank the shadow Minister for his commitment and his support for cross-party, and I want to answer some of his points.
The hon. Gentleman raised, rightly, the question of natural resources and the contribution they can make in carbon reduction. I am sure he will be pleased to know that, since 1990, emissions from that sector have halved. He is absolutely right that there is more to do, but they now account for only 15% of the total emissions pie. Indeed, there have been some amazing efficiency improvements, and I pay tribute to our farmers and to our innovative investors in this area. For example, it takes a third less CO2 to produce a kilo of pork now than it did in 1990. However, there is clearly more to do, and he clearly points out something with which he knows I agree, which is that we have to take a whole-economy approach to making these reductions.
I will say to the hon. Gentleman what I said earlier about declaring net zero. The only way to ensure that the actions we want to deliver actually can be delivered is to make sure, when we set them out, that they are fully understood, fully costed and fully planned, and that we have buy-in from local authorities, civil society and so on. I am really looking forward to seeing the CCC’s advice, but I will take the time that is required and work with whoever needs to be involved to ensure that, when we set that target, it can actually be delivered. I do not want to be the Minister who attempts to set out something very profound, only for it to be hived off because of other pressures that may occur down the line. If we make such a commitment, it must stick.

Nicholas Soames: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her outstanding record in her Department, on which I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). Does the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth agree that one of the things that is essential in a grown-up discussion on climate change is that there should be a proper sense of proportion about what has been achieved and an understanding of what needs to be achieved, which everyone agrees is itself of the first importance? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom has been among the most successful countries in the developed world in growing our economy while at the same time reducing our emissions, which in itself is a very important lesson for the future?

Claire Perry: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, and I would also like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood  and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who did so much in this brief before I was lucky enough to take it on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) is absolutely right: a sense of proportion is hugely important. I can go further and say that not only are we among the leaders, but, according to independent research, we have led the G20 in decarbonising our economy through looking at carbon intensity. Again, this is not to say that there is not more to do; it is to say that it can be done—it can be done in a way that does not jeopardise energy security, and does not put undue cost burdens on consumers or businesses—and that while we know there is more to do, we should take hope from the progress that we have made.

Deidre Brock: May I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement? I have to say, however, that this statement seems very empty. It appears to be a case of saying something because she has to say something, rather than because she has something to say. It is a reaction to the protests we have seen, rather than a real plan for the future or any indication that there is a real plan for the future.
Since there was no mention of it in her statement, may I ask the Minister: where is the Government’s response to the report of the green finance taskforce? We were promised it in the spring of this year, and surely there should have been at least some indication of that in this statement on the way forward. Where, too, is the response to the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England warning of the economic risks of the low-carbon transition? Will the Government commit to creating a green and resilient pipeline of low-carbon projects, and will she clarify that institutional investors will be made responsible for limiting climate-related financial risks to pensions, savings and investments?
In June last year, the Environmental Audit Committee warned of an “alarming collapse” in investment in renewable energy, and this morning the Minister told us that wave and tidal power had been outcompeted for support. What are the Government doing to address the low investment in renewables? Finally, the UK is set to miss its emissions reduction targets under the Climate Change Act for the fourth carbon budget by 3% to 12%, and for the fifth carbon budget by 6% to 20%. Will she commit the Government to implementing the recommendations of its own green finance taskforce in full, and will she give that commitment today?

Claire Perry: As I set up the green finance taskforce, along with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am absolutely committed to bringing forward many of its proposals. Indeed, we have been making progress on its proposals. We are very lucky—again, it is a source of great success for us—that we have one of the most innovative financial capabilities in the world, and we are really capable of advancing progress in that area. For example, we have set up the green finance institute; there is the green finance strategy, and more details will be coming forward.
The hon. Lady raised the question of wave and tidal, and I just want to clarify that slightly. It is a question of how, if we have a limited amount of money, we are best to spend it to achieve the decarbonisation targets we  want with the best value to taxpayers. I believe we have spent almost £60 million on innovation funding for wave and tidal—I will make sure that number is correct, and write to the hon. Lady if it is not—and we look carefully at every proposal that has come forward. I was very pleased to meet the Marine Energy Council, working on a cross-party basis, to see how we might do more to go forward.
Finally, I do not want to nit-pick, but the hon. Lady is citing numbers on the budgets that are simply not true. We are currently at 95% of where we need to be to meet CB4, which ends in 2027, and 93% of the way to meet CB5, which ends in 2032. Importantly, we are bringing forward policies and proposals all the time, including the proposals made in the spring statement, against which we have not yet done a CO2 accounting. As the House knows, I am confident that, with a level of investment, focus and support, we will achieve these budgets. However, that will not be enough to get us to a zero-carbon emissions net target by 2050, which is why we will have to continue to innovate and invest.

Justine Greening: Obviously, the public sector’s contribution to this is equally important. What does the Minister have to say to companies such as Zebra Fuel in my constituency that can play its part in bringing new technology on electric batteries to the public sector, but has actually found it quite hard, with its more innovative approach, to engage with many different parts of the public sector?

Claire Perry: I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend’s constituents are finding it difficult to engage, because leadership in the public sector is actually something on which we can really demonstrate progress. We have introduced a voluntary public sector emissions reduction target of 30%. We have actually over-achieved on the central Government estate on narrower targets. We have set up a new greenhouse gas reduction target of minus 43%—of course, this also saves taxpayers’ money—and we have things such as the Salix Finance programme, which provides zero-carbon funding through a revolving fund to ensure that the public sector can access funds where needed. I encourage us all to make sure that our local authorities are aware of that fund. If my right hon. Friend wants to send me any more information, I will certainly make sure that that engagement happens.

Ed Miliband: I want to ask the Minister about the global context. We have had 1° of warming already. Paris set the objective of no more than 1.5° of warming, but I think I am right in saying that the Paris pledges add up to about 2.7° of warming, and the world is off track on the Paris commitments. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made since Paris on improving the pledges globally? It seems to me that very little progress has been made. In the run-up to the conference of the parties in 2020, wherever it is hosted—I hope that we host it—what is the strategy for getting there? People are out on the streets not just because of the domestic context, but because they think that a rise of 2° will be a disaster and we are going to go well above that, so the global context is vital.

Claire Perry: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman makes such a profound point, given his experience. Whatever we do in the UK and however  much we talk about our progress, it is an infinitesimal part of the current emissions profile.
Two things have happened since Paris. First, I know it sounds very boring and dull, but the development of a rule book, so that we can look each other in the eye and hold each other to account on an agreed set of measurements, is really important. If we cannot measure it, we cannot manage it. Secondly, the COP next year will be important because we will set out our nationally determined contributions and be able to quantify, on a like-for-like basis, what the current emissions profile looks like.
It is incredibly important that the COP is successful and ambitious, but we should not forget how seminal it was to get 196 countries even to agree on that target and to agree a process for working together; that is unprecedented. My hope is that the global protests and conversations will focus the minds of Ministers across the world and result in a successful outcome from the 2020 COP.

Caroline Spelman: I listened, “Blue Peter”-style, to the statement that the Minister made earlier, and I congratulate her on her bold assertion that there is no planet B. Does she recognise the actions of institutional investors to save the planet? The Church Commissioners, as shareholders, require the companies in which they invest to be compliant with the Paris agreement, thus demonstrating the power of market forces to effect change.

Claire Perry: Some of the most important meetings I have been lucky enough to have in this role have been with faith groups. Interfaith groups work extremely well, setting their own targets and using the significant power of their own investment might to effect change. During our first Green Great Britain Week, people asked, “What else can I do? I have turned off my lights; I am cycling a lot; and I am recycling.” The most effective thing we can do is to think hard about our pension funds—either through our investments or by lobbying trustees, such as those of the House of Commons scheme—because it is 27 times more effective to get an institutional investor to make the shift. The good news is that that is happening right across the world, and amazing groups, such as the Church groups, are doing it in the UK. That is the power of market forces, and such actions will dwarf the amount of money that Government are investing in this low-carbon transition.

Albert Owen: I am proud to have supported the Climate Change Act 2008, and I pay tribute to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). The Minister is right to say that progress has been made by successive Governments, but one area that is very challenging is the built environment. Does she agree that more has to be done, particularly in England? The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee is doing an inquiry on that topic, and the statistics are that the Welsh Government spend twice as much as the UK Government, Scotland four times as much and Northern Ireland 1.5 times as much. She keeps saying that we need action, so let us have action in this House by this Government.

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. The built environment can encompass homes, buildings and transport—

Albert Owen: I know what it means.

Claire Perry: Good. I was coming on to say that one of the most effective ways to influence the built environment is at a local level. I have been struck by the ambition of, and the progress made by, local authorities and combined authorities across the UK. Of course the Government can set ambitions and change regulations, but it is much more powerful for local authorities to say, “This is what we want to do, and this is where the investment needs to go,” and design it themselves. I have been particularly pleased, in the homes environment, with the announcement that we will not be building homes reliant on fossil fuel heating by 2025. Not only will that transform heating, but it will improve the market conditions and drive down the cost of that technology.

Richard Benyon: I am not entirely sure what is meant by declaring a climate emergency. As far as I am concerned, there is a climate emergency. The IPCC report gives us 12 years to get this sorted out, which is a nanosecond in climatic science terms. We do need to scare the pants off our constituents about the changes that we need to make, but it will only work if we carry our constituents with us. With their busy lives, they will simply turn a tin ear to finger pointing and negativity. We need to mobilise the essential optimism of the British people about the opportunities for change that exist right across the economy.

Claire Perry: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I paid tribute to him earlier for making the point that this is not just about our atmosphere, but about our watercourses, our land use and our entire ecosystem. We must focus on the opportunities. When many people hear that we have 12 years to save the planet—that is a terrifying thought—they think, “What is the point? We cannot possibly change anything, because there is so much CO2 and we will never get rid of it.” The point is that we can change, and we have changed. We have done so in a way that has not impoverished people or interfered with our energy security. Energy bills have actually gone down, because energy efficiency in the home has increased. These are myths that we must bust, and we must take people with us as we make the changes.

Vernon Coaker: When I met young people from Carlton le Willows Academy recently and received their petition, I could feel their frustration in what they said about climate change. They think we are sleepwalking towards disaster and we need to wake up. They think this Parliament is asleep. What are we going to do about that?
I ask the Minister to reflect on the language that she uses, because some of it sounds complacent. The Government have done things, but we need to convey the sense of urgency and explain how we are going to get a move on before the world collapses and implodes on itself. Building on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has said, what are we going to do to bring the world together? This is a wake-up call for our own country and countries across the world, if we are going to avert the disaster that is staring us in the face.

Claire Perry: If there is any communication of complacency, I am horrified. I think that we have to focus calmly on the science. It is striking that in this debate, nobody has stood up and said, “This is a hoax,  and it is not happening.” That is incredible, and it would not have happened 10 years ago. There is almost universal acceptance of the challenge and our progress.
One thing that I hear from young people is, “You have done nothing.” What does that say about what so many colleagues in this House have done for the past 10 years? Colleagues have done incredible things. They have supported huge changes to our energy system. When I was elected, 40% of our power came from coal. Over this Easter weekend, that figure has been zero, and it will be down to zero completely by 2025. That is a huge achievement. We must say to people, “You are right to encourage us to do more and to be angry with us, but don’t say that we have done nothing. None of you was asleep at the wheel before we got here, and we certainly haven’t been asleep at the wheel since then.”

Robert Courts: Will the Minister elaborate a little on the importance she attaches to growing the economy at the same time as tackling climate change? Is it not the case that we will need to be able to invest in the technology that we will require to cut emissions further?

Claire Perry: Yes. One of the challenges that I have heard is that we need a fundamental reworking of the market-based system to solve all our problems. My recollection is that centrally planned economies historically had some of the worst records on environmental pollution, climate change and emissions. I have seen the power of the private sector investment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) referred to earlier, the technology and innovation that come from competition and things such as the auction system—I see the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), who previously occupied the post held by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and who helped to design the system—which have sent the costs of offshore wind tumbling over the past few years. The market-based system does deliver, but we need Government to set ambition, to regulate where required and to convene where necessary.

Mary Creagh: This statement is very timely, given that Marsden moor, outside Huddersfield, and Ilkley moor, outside Bradford, have been on fire—raging—this weekend. Today, there has been a machinery of government announcement that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is transferring greenhouse gas business emissions over to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and 12,000 companies will now report on that. In that new guidance there are just seven pages on water, three pages on waste, two on resource efficiency and biodiversity, and woodland creation, and the greenhouse gases associated with it, has been relegated to one page in annexe K. May I urge the Minister not to lose sight of the natural world? When the new greening government commitments are made in 2020, may I ask that every Government Department is properly accountable? Our audits have found that they are failing to meet them in both the policy sphere and in their own operations.

Claire Perry: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the Environmental Audit Committee. She knows that I and others are very impressed with the work she does. She  raises an important point. The whole-of-Government approach is so valuable. We can no longer just point to a silo and say that if we have solved that, the problem is solved. We have to advance on all fronts. I will look at what she suggests we review. If improvement is needed, we will deliver it.

Rebecca Pow: The Minister quite rightly outlined the very wide-ranging ways we are decarbonising across all sectors. That is absolutely the right thing, but does she agree that better management of our soils could go a very long way to achieving many of our emissions targets—indeed, getting to net zero sooner—if only we managed the soils better? We have a great opportunity to get this right through the 25-year environment plan, the Agriculture Bill and the environment Bill, which will be the biggest piece of environmental legislation since the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Does that not show that while we get the message about the crisis—we are hearing that—the way to put it right is through policies?

Claire Perry: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on this topic, of which she is something of an expert. She had a very successful soil summit just before the recess. We have realised that some of the most cost-effective ways of sequestering carbon, such as soil improvement, changes in land use management and forestation, are also those that are best for the natural environment. I think we have all collectively realised how we need to continue to invest in these important areas.

Edward Davey: In thanking the Minister for her kind words about the design of CFD auctions, which has ensured that Britain is a world leader in offshore wind, I have to say to her that I found her statement rather panglossian. Renewable energy investment has fallen off a cliff in the past two years. The major expansion in renewable investment was really about investment decisions made before 2015, which, I have to say, her former colleague, the then Chancellor George Osborne, tried to unpick directly after the 2015 election. May I refer her to the point made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on the Paris climate change treaty? Does she not accept that it was Britain’s leadership in the European Union on climate change that led to very ambitious targets adopted by heads of state of the EU in October 2014, that led to the Americans and the Chinese being more ambitious on climate change, and thereto to the Paris climate change treaty? What is going to happen when Britain is not at the table at the European Union showing that leadership?

Claire Perry: I would slightly challenge the right hon. Gentleman on the point about investment. He will know that investment can be quite lumpy—it depends on when you are having an auction round—and we are buying far more with less, because the price of renewables has fallen so much. We are paying far less per unit of renewable energy. I was very struck, when we launched the offshore wind sector deal, with how turning out that market provides investment certainty. There is a real lesson to be learnt there for other technologies. I do not accept the point that without the UK at the table we will no longer be able to push the EU and other countries. We will continue to have a loud voice in this area and continue to lead from the front.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that no matter how strongly people feel about this issue, they do not have the right to block roads or to encourage students to take unauthorised absences from school?

Claire Perry: To peacefully protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but I do think that forcing people to not take energy-efficient public transport on their way home, creating disruption for those going on a hard-earned holiday, and causing our excellent police force to give up their leave over Easter—I want to pay tribute to the police—should make people think long and hard about the tactics they are using.

Caroline Lucas: The Minister regularly takes me to task for not being positive enough about her Government, so I am going to surprise her. I am going to overlook the fracking, the expansion of Heathrow airport and the new coalfield up in Cumbria, and say that when it comes to global climate work the Government are doing good work. But even there, it is undermined by the work of the UK export credit agency, which is giving so much—billions of pounds—to more oil and gas exploration in some of the poorest countries. Will she surprise me in turn by saying she will be doing something about that?

Claire Perry: I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is a wonderful day to have the hon. Lady being positive about the work that not just my Government but the whole of the UK are doing. She raises an important point about the challenge of investment. We of course support those industries that are highly productive and generate jobs and revenue. She will know that one thing we are looking at is to ensure we are not supporting, for example, coalmining. We will continue to look at that, but we also have to make sure that when we are supporting exports they deliver revenues and jobs for the Exchequer, so we can continue to invest in the low-carbon revolution.

Julia Lopez: There is a genuine public appetite to protect the environment, but it is not always clear to people where to direct their efforts. That is where the Government have such an important role in incentivising behavioural change. Will the Minister advise how she is trying to harness that public appetite by better signposting people to ways in which they can do their bit, and how they might help her in lobbying other countries which have been less successful in reducing their emissions?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend will have hopefully heard our announcement that we will have our second Green Great Britain week, which is a brilliant week-long opportunity from 4 October to say what we have done, challenge others to do more and work right across the country. I would hope the whole country would recognise that if we are able to win the bid to host the climate change talks, not only would that be an amazing chance for us to help the world move to decarbonisation, it would also be an incredible opportunity to showcase some of our best green technologies and businesses. Hopefully people will realise the benefit that comes from those investments in terms of jobs and growth.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that we should all hang our heads in shame? The great political parties and all their members  have not done enough. We should be ashamed that it took a little Swedish girl to come here today and tell us that we need a sense of urgency and leadership, and recognise that we must act sooner rather than later to stop this threat that will destroy this fragile planet. Does she not agree with me that we should have listened to the scientists years ago? Twenty-five years ago, I started the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—SERA—a campaigning organisation in my party. We should have listened to the scientists then. We are still not listening to them clearly and closely enough now.

Claire Perry: We should have been listening to the scientists in 1950, when the link was first found. What has been important about Ms Thunberg’s visit today—it is amazing to see the work—is that the conversation has gone from being niche, held between people who, like me, have long-standing interests in this area, to a mainstream conversation where everybody is talking about what it is that we need to do. That is why this is such a challenge but is so important. For the first time, the whole country is talking about climate change. I believe the whole world is talking about climate change and how we stop it. There are no deniers on the Conservative Benches.

Peter Aldous: The UK has a good and proven track record in meeting the challenges of climate change, from passing the Climate Change Act in 2008 to the emergence of a world-leading industry in offshore wind, which is bringing significant benefits to my constituency. That said, we can do more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from our existing housing stock, which will tackle the scourge of fuel poverty, and will she consider recognising housing as a key component of national infrastructure?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend has been a marvellous champion of renewable energy. It was a delight to launch the offshore wind sector deal in Lowestoft and to see the regeneration that it is bringing to that proud port. He is right to talk about retrofitting homes. I sat on the green deal Bill Committee, as many others did, and we thought that we had an answer there, but it did not work. We have to keep going and recognise that such things as green mortgage lending could make an important contribution. Hopefully he will be pleased to see that we have focused the whole of the ECO budget on fuel poverty and have also upped the innovation component, because we need to have innovation in the area of retrofitting homes, particularly to drive costs down.

Liz McInnes: There seems to be precious little action on achieving the Aichi biodiversity targets. The UK is on track to achieve only five of these 20 targets by 2020, so what action does the Minister intend to take to rectify this woeful situation?

Claire Perry: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is challenging the breadth of my knowledge on this. It is not my Department’s area, but I would be very happy to engage with her further. She points out that we can no longer talk about climate, ocean and biodiversity as separate silos. We have to join them up, so I look forward to a conversation where she can perhaps educate me more on that point.

Philip Hollobone: Authoritative research from Carbon Brief shows that the UK has now cut CO2 emissions to the lowest level since 1888, that in the last seven years the decline in CO2 emissions has been the fastest sustained fall in history, and that since 1990, the UK has cut carbon emissions faster than any other major economy in the world. Are not all three very proud achievements of this Government?

Claire Perry: I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents in Kettering are among the most green-minded in the country, as he often points out to us. He mentions an important fact—yes, we have more to do, but we should be really proud of our achievements. People thought that this would be impossible, but it is possible and achievable, and we will continue to do more.

Sammy Wilson: Despite the views of many in this House that Government action can control and fine-tune the complex world climate, the fact of the matter is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. We have experienced it throughout the history of the world and we will experience it in the future. A small part of that is greenhouse gas emissions, 97% of which are natural, caused by water vapour, volcanic activity and decaying vegetation, and 3% of which is caused by man. One per cent. of that is caused by the United Kingdom—a very small percentage—yet we have changed our economy dramatically. While the Minister has outlined the Government’s achievements, she has not pointed out that we pay dearly for energy bills and have fuel poverty, and that we have lost tens of thousands of jobs in energy-intensive industries. At the same time, while we are setting these targets, nature and our competitors are offsetting our draconian actions.

Claire Perry: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I disagree with his scientific analysis. The link between CO2 emissions and temperature increases is proven to an extent well beyond the proof that smoking causes lung cancer. The challenge that he rightly raises, though, is how we act in a way that is just and fair and ensures that we do not put people out of work and that we do not put bills up. The Government go through a process of making sure that our energy-intensive industries are held whole and they do not overpay for their energy. We all supported a price cap Bill to ensure that the cost of energy is held down, but ultimately, this is why when we act, we have to act in a proportionate way and make sure that whoever ends up having to pay for this—whether it is customers, taxpayers or shareholders—is paying a fair and proportionate amount.

Sarah Newton: Cornwall and the wider south-west have clean growth at the heart of our local and regional industrial strategy. Many innovative businesses will be delivering the solutions that we need to decarbonise, so will the Minister publish the green finance strategy when she publishes her response to the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, because like her, I think that market forces can be forces for good?

Claire Perry: I will look into that. Cornwall is wonderful for many things and the adoption of clean growth as a fundamental part of a local industrial strategy is incredibly exciting. We want to see other areas doing the same.

Clive Efford: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), the Minister said she liked local innovation but refused to direct any resources for improving the built environment in local communities, which he was calling for. What resources will local authorities have access to in order to carry out the innovation she is talking about?

Claire Perry: I neglected to mention the £8 million we have put into local energy partnerships. We often find that local authorities have lots of ambition but not necessarily the skills, and we want to make sure they have them and the investment. I also referenced the Salix pot, which is available to many local government buildings, which are also an important part of the built environment.

Douglas Ross: Solar energy plays a crucial role. Last month, I met the Minister and Moray-based AES Solar, which explained its concerns about the cliff edge the industry was facing because of a change in policy. More than three weeks later, that policy gap still exists. I am sure she accepts the urgency of this issue, so can she tell us when the Government will publish their smart export guarantee policy?

Claire Perry: It will be published as soon as possible. I thank my hon. Friend for that meeting. As he will know, energy companies are voluntarily bringing forward what are in effect smart export guarantee prices, so those price signals are already coming through. As I said, we want to get it right. We do not want to find, as we did with feed-in tariffs, that we have committed more than £30 billion, as we will have done over the lifetime of that scheme, to deliver a relatively small number of installations. We want to future-proof the smart export guarantee and we want to make it stick.

Ben Lake: The Minister mentioned in her statement that the Government had sought the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on a net zero target. Can she reassure the House that, should this advice entail a greater investment in low-carbon innovation than the £2.5 billion detailed in the clean growth strategy, the Government will commit additional funding as necessary?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to make funding bids to my colleagues in the Treasury. Of course, I would want to make that bid. Innovation funding and co-partnership on innovation is a huge success and one we need in order to drive down costs and drive up deployment.

Victoria Prentis: None of us can doubt the energy and determination of the Minister to deal with this issue, but could I encourage her to take an hour out of her week to watch the fabulous Channel 4 documentary, “The Street”, about the very innovative way Cherwell District Council is allowing people to self-build houses in Bicester? I think she would be as surprised as I was at the way eco credentials become very important when people build their own home. Will she watch this documentary—it’s Kevin McCloud, so it won’t hurt her—and think more carefully about how to encourage people and local councils to embed eco values when they build?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend points out an incredibly important fact. While people want to do the right thing, they often do not know where to go, and centrally imposed standards often suppress rather than stimulate innovation. Trying to get that right is the subject of a review by other Departments at the moment, but perhaps she could pour me a glass of organic wine and we could watch it together?

Alison Thewliss: I asked the Minister earlier what she would do to incentivise all renewables, and I got a very narrow answer, so let me try again. Small-scale renewables such as solar panels have been fitted in developments in my constituency, such as the social rented housing one in Pollokshields, built by Home Group, but Hannah Smith of Scottish Renewables has said
“that the end of the feed-in tariff will mean, at best, a period of enormous uncertainty for the companies that install these projects and for the people who work for them”.
The solar sector in Scotland has sold the equivalent of 360,000 solar panels every year since 2010. It is no small industry. What will she do to restore certainty and incentivise that industry?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady makes the important point that we need to hurry up with the smart export guarantee and make sure it works to deliver that, but I would gently encourage her to look at the outcome that we are delivering, rather than focusing on a particular technology. Last month, renewable energy in the UK was at over 40%, and we can now source things such as offshore wind at subsidy-free prices, so we are delivering and will continue to deliver, but we need to do that in a way that provides value for money for consumers.

Kerry McCarthy: Bristol was the first city in the UK—I think—to declare a climate emergency, so I put on record that Bristol would be more than willing to host the COP talks, if we do win the bid. I can think of nowhere better.

Thangam Debbonaire: Hear, hear!

Kerry McCarthy: That is a joint bid by my hon. Friend and me!
I want to ask specifically about sustainable development goal 12 on responsible production and consumption. It seems to me that we are using far too many of the world’s natural resources producing things we do not actually need just to keep money flowing between buyers and sellers. How can we limit that circle and use our natural resources more wisely?

Claire Perry: As a Nailsea girl, I would naturally be biased in favour of a Bristol bid, but I suspect that there will be a “whole of the UK” bid.
The hon. Lady has made an important point. I think we have made progress with the so-called sustainable economy and will continue to do so, but our continued progress will require Government action alongside action by producers. Again, we are trying to lead by example, but there is clearly much more to do. I must challenge one of the hon. Lady’s points: I think that climate change is involved in 15 of the sustainable development goals, which means that it is fundamental to nearly all of them.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister is right to talk about the need for more action at an international level, but can she explain how she intends to use the bid for COP26 to achieve that, and, specifically, will she spell out the more ambitious targets that she thinks the world should embrace?

Claire Perry: Let us try to win the bid first. Other countries are bidding, and I want to ensure that if we do win it, we are able to offer appropriate leadership. Perhaps we can have that conversation in a few months’ time.

Kate Green: Earlier this year, the mayor of Greater Manchester published his clean air plan. I welcomed that, but we need help from the Government to deliver it. In particular, we need funds for a vehicle scrappage scheme and for retrofitting our bus fleet. What assurance can the Minister give us that funds will be made available to us for those purposes?

Claire Perry: I commend that plan as a good example of the work that can be done to pull through change. We have increased our support for the transition to zero-emission vehicles across the country to more than £1.5 billion, which will fund charging points, some support for buyers, and the transition to clean mass public transport. I would welcome conversations both with the hon. Lady and with colleagues from other Departments. If we are to accelerate this process, we need to do that first in areas where it will make a real difference to air quality.

Paul Sweeney: The nature of this emergency necessitates a national mission-orientated approach, the same sort of vigorous approach that the Americans adopted in the 1960s when they had a national mission to put a man on the moon. That requires the Government to be much more proactive, and much more active, in their approach to bringing forward technologies, de-risking them, and launching them into the wider marketplace in our economy.
A good example of the current failure is in the offshore renewables sector. BiFab yards in Scotland are currently lying idle, with no certainty about their future, because both the UK Government and the Scottish Government are failing to get a grip on the need to allocate a level playing field. Navantia, the Spanish shipbuilder, is currently benefiting from 35% subsidies from the Spanish Government, but this Government are taking no action to level the playing field. We have been ripped off by companies in competitor nations that are stealing our technologies and also undermining our industrial base. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Claire Perry: I understand the BiFab situation, which the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed before, but I must gently correct him. The offshore wind sector deal included a commitment to ensuring that UK content—real content, not just intellectual property content—would rise to 60%, and a commitment to a much better audit process. I am aware of the claims that the hon. Gentleman has made, and we must ensure that there is a level playing field when we are essentially committing taxpayers’ money to developing the industry further.

Luke Pollard: A letter has been signed by me and by Councillor Tudor Evans, the leader of Plymouth City Council, and co-signed by 65 young people aged from three to 17 who attended the climate strike outside the council’s offices. If they were listening to the debate, they would have heard nothing from the Minister about agreeing to declare a climate emergency. Those young people would want me to ask the Minister please to declare a climate emergency and work across parties, so let me ask the Government, on their behalf, to demonstrate that they are listening to them.

Claire Perry: I am sorry if that is the impression that has been given. I cannot say too often that we need actions, not just words. It is the easiest thing in the world to stand up with a document and say, “Look, here is our plan.” Unless there are actions that we can deliver, unless we can show those young people that we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is, we should all just pack up and go home. Well, I am not going home. I will continue to campaign on climate change, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do so as well.

Patrick Grady: Pupils at Kelvindale primary school in Hillhead, secondary school pupils at the Glasgow Academy and students at Glasgow University have all taken part in the climate protests. They understand the importance of tackling the issue, not just here at home but around the world. Is the Minister committed to the principle of climate justice, and in particular to supporting people in developing countries who are feeling the effects of climate change first and hardest but have done the least to cause it? If the Government support that she has mentioned is being counted in the overseas development assistance target, can she assure us that it is being spent in developing countries rather than subsidising other Government work being done here?

Claire Perry: That is an incredibly important point. In fact, we should be really proud of the way we spend funding. We are trying not only to ensure that we fund adaptation and mitigation, but to invest in projects that help other countries leapfrog some of the things we have done—for example, relying on a coal-based energy system. From Brazil, where we are supporting reforestation, to renewables in Africa, our projects are really making a difference. They are providing employment, they are providing skills and they are ensuring that we have that just transition that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Matthew Pennycook: I join others in acknowledging the progress made under successive Governments, but the truth is that, unless the status of emissions reduction is raised in this Government, and the UK’s response to climate crisis is driven vigorously from the centre so that all Departments are forced to act, we will continue to fall short. With that in mind, how well prepared does the Minister think the institutions of Government are for the scale and pace of the transition required?

Claire Perry: I think that part of the challenge, but also part of the opportunity, is that this has to be a cross-Government process. We simply cannot sit and make policy around transport emissions without thinking  about infrastructure. We cannot talk about energy without thinking about planning systems. There is therefore absolutely fundamental cross-Government agreement on this, as well as, hopefully, cross-party agreement. It is telling that, when we agreed to put forward our COP bid, which involves a not insubstantial cost, that was done with complete Cabinet unanimity, because everybody recognises the importance of this issue and how fundamentally every part of our economy has to change.

Helen Goodman: At the beginning of her statement, the Minister said how good the Climate Change Act 10 years ago was because it put legal obligations on the Government. One of the interesting things Greta Thunberg said earlier today was that we needed to move from the politically possible to the scientifically necessary. The high point of political possibility was reached in Paris, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out, that is not enough—that is not delivering the goods. When the Minister goes back into the international arena, in Chile at the end of the year, will she think about promoting legal obligations and not just pledges at the international level?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady is right that we have to act as well as just setting out these warm words. One of the things we have been doing that is working is encouraging other countries to pass their own climate legislation so that they are not setting interesting, politically attractive targets and then all going off and having lunch. They are actually putting in law the sorts of budgets and reduction trajectories that we have had to enact. That means that Ministers have to stand up and have these uncomfortable grillings in front of people who know a lot more about the subject than they do.

Sylvia Hermon: I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement, but I was particularly struck by one phrase, which stood out above the others: that we here in the UK should be proud that we “have shown real leadership.” I latched on to that phrase because, as the Minister will know, we have no functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland. We also have no Environment Minister in Northern Ireland, and nor have we had one since January 2017—for over two years. I need to know—and I am sure my Northern Ireland colleagues also need to know—that there has been real leadership in Northern Ireland in terms of carbon emissions, in the absence of a functioning Assembly. That, of course, must mean that the Minister and her officials have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Department responsible for this issue. Can she offer me that assurance and give me some details of that work?

Claire Perry: Indeed I can offer the hon. Lady that assurance. I have regular ministerial quadrilaterals—in this case with the civil servants, who do an excellent job representing Northern Ireland on many issues, including climate change progress and deal or no-deal planning, so the system is working. Obviously, we would like to see political leadership as well in Northern Ireland, but the process is working, and the market mechanisms that have been put in place are delivering the CO2 reductions that we want to see.

Thangam Debbonaire: The right hon. Lady might be sick of hearing me ask the same question over and over again, so I will try to ask it in a  different way. She says that she wants action and not words, and I agree with her, but the two are not mutually exclusive. She comes up with lots of ideas and, as she said, there is a lot in the various documents that she has referred to, so why not have actions and words? Powerful words often lead to much more powerful action. This is an emergency, and today’s young people feel a sense of urgency. They need to see leadership coming from within this room, so will the Minister please think again and declare a climate emergency?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady will get the same answer, but she gets points for persistency. I am still waiting for my vegan meal to be delivered to the Houses of Parliament, by the way. The point still stands that it does not matter what we all stand up and say; what matters is that we go out of here and do. I know that she is passionate about this on behalf of her constituents and the country that she is proud to represent, and we are delivering and will continue to deliver. I want to be the Minister who actually commits us to a course of action, not just to a slogan that sounds good on a T-shirt.

Nicholas Dakin: The Minister is absolutely right to focus on actions. The Government’s own analysis shows that the introduction of E10 would take the equivalent of 1 million vehicles off the road. That is something that could be done now, so will she, as one of her actions, immediately speak to her colleagues in the Department for Transport and get them to accelerate the move to E10?

Claire Perry: Yes.

Northern Ireland Executive

John Penrose: I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Extension of Period for Executive Formation) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 616), which were laid before this House on 21 March, be approved.
The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 initially created a five-month breathing space, in which everyone hoped and expected that we would be able to get the Stormont Executive back up and running, and that is what we have all been working towards. The Act also allowed for a one-off further extension of five months, and that is what these regulations would bring about. This is a small and perfectly formed statutory instrument. It runs to all of one side of a page and contains two regulations, one of which deals with citation and commencement. It simply adds another five months of breathing space, opportunity and potential, during which, if we work hard and if all sides are willing, we might be able reinstate the different sides in Stormont and get the Assembly back up and running.
I do not need to tell anyone here how import this is. In the preceding piece of business, we heard that this area is crying out for a political voice to deal with the devolved issues in Northern Ireland. Everyone on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland, and more broadly, understands the importance of this, and I therefore hope that everyone will back not only the statutory instrument but the efforts from all sides of the community to push everyone towards a willingness to come up with a successful resumption of and conclusion to the talks. As this is a short statutory instrument of only two regulations, I propose to sit down now and leave the floor open to others who might wish to contribute. I hope that everyone will feel able to support the regulations this evening.

Steve Pound: I think it is appropriate, although not necessarily relevant, to mention the sombre, serious and sober debate on the murder of Lyra McKee that we had earlier. The statements that we heard from the Northern Ireland Members present will resonate long in this House and far beyond it. It makes it all the more important, when we are dealing with business like this—in the absence of an Executive and an Assembly—that we do not allow a vacuum for the gangsters and the men and women of violence to succeed and to flourish. I profoundly hope that what we heard tonight will be a tipping point and that there is a possibility of a return to normalcy, which would be epitomised by this sort of legislation.
This is an extremely unusual piece of legislation in that it has already been made. It comes before us, as the Minister said, small and perfectly formed, but it was perfectly formed last month. It is what we call an affirmative statutory instrument. I am sure that some people lie awake at night dreaming of unusual affirmative statutory instruments, but I do not count myself among those people. This is a piece—[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I am being heckled from the Back Benches, but what I do at night is entirely my own business.
One of the first questions I asked was, “Why was it expedient for this statutory instrument to be made without the prior approval of Parliament?” The answer is quite simply that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was deep in negotiations with the various parties in the Northern Ireland, and it is a tragedy that we have to consider this piece of legislation now after those negotiations have taken place.
The explanatory memorandum refers to negotiations that have taken place with all the Northern Ireland political parties, and I am interested to know whether any negative comments or suggestions were made at that time. I want to put the House’s mind entirely at rest, calm fragile beating hearts and say that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will almost certainly not oppose the regulations.

Sammy Wilson: One way of avoiding this legislation would be for the Secretary of State to put it up to the parties in Northern Ireland. If they wish to go into the Assembly, as they all say they do, the Secretary of State could call the Assembly tomorrow and see who turns up. That would show which parties are the real obstacle to the Assembly forming again.

Steve Pound: I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years—I knew him when he was opposing his predecessor in an impressive campaign—but he tempts me down a primrose path that I must sadly resist. I cannot at this stage in my not-particularly-successful parliamentary career claim to speak for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The closest that I have ever come to the Secretary of State is being on the other side of the Dispatch Box, and I am sure that she is quite happy with that—the distance, I mean. I cannot make any comment, but I am familiar with the statement, which the right hon. Gentleman has made before. Labour does not intend to oppose the regulations tonight. In fact, on the contrary, we actually intend to confirm our support. However, we would like some indication of the road map to devolution being restored.
I want to refer to Paul Murphy, now Lord Torfaen, who supported the regulations in the other place. I remember him well, and he is held in great respect. I remember that the late Rev. Dr Ian Paisley would greet him every morning with the salutation, “And how is the apostle Paul this morning?” Paul Murphy loves Northern Ireland, but he said in his speech in the upper House that
“Northern Ireland is the least democratic part of our country and of the European Union. No nationalist Members of Parliament, or, for that matter, Members of this House, take their seats”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 April 2019; Vol. 797, c. 519.]
and “there is no Assembly”. Tonight, we realise the full impact of that situation, which cannot be allowed to pertain.
There has been some talk of the discussions being accelerated by the appointment of an independent arbiter—someone to oversee them. It is a superficially attractive proposition, but I understand that the Secretary of State is currently in discussions with two committees of Members of the Legislative Assembly, and we would like to see how that progresses.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of what is going to happen after the August date expires? What we are being asked to support tonight takes us to August, and he knows how quickly July will pass with the marching season. Does he have any idea of the plan post August?

Steve Pound: I did ask the Minister earlier for some indication of the road map, but all I can say is that if the Secretary of State or the Minister, let alone myself or my colleague the shadow Secretary of State, had the remotest idea of where we will be in two or three months, we would be buying lottery tickets, not sitting here tonight. With respect, I have to say that I do not know. All I know is that we have to show willing, determination, energy and absolute commitment, because we cannot carry on with a situation in which such legislation is taken through the House in the absence of those who should be dealing with it. This is Northern Ireland business, and it should be dealt with by Northern Ireland legislators in Northern Ireland. I hope every single one of us accepts that.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Pound: Of course I will. I could hardly refuse.

Sylvia Hermon: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he will not regret taking my intervention. Having listened to what he has just said, I am curious to know whether, in fact, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—we often hear them described as the “loyal Opposition”—would support the Secretary of State if she were to exercise her power to call a Northern Ireland Assembly election in the event that the parties do not come to any agreement before the expiry date in August. Would the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues support the Secretary of State in that event?

Steve Pound: Once again, I am tempted by the spirit of hypothesis. I cannot imagine that situation at the present time, and it is not really appropriate at this stage even to hypothesise along those lines. I am perfectly prepared to discuss these things in the silent, tenebrous gloom of the Tea Room, but we should not be making such suggestions and prognostications on the Floor of the House.
I finish by saying that we support the regulations and will not be voting against them. We understand that the Secretary of State is doing her best on this. Obviously, like everyone in the House, I wanted to do more, and I think she wanted to do more—I think every one of us feels that way. It is with sadness that we support the regulations tonight, but we understand they are absolutely necessary. This is the first piece of made legislation I have seen come before the House in this way, and I profoundly hope it will be the last and that there will be less and less Northern Ireland business taken on the Floor of the House. Let it be repatriated to Northern Ireland, where it belongs. We support the regulations.

Andrew Murrison: I share the weariness of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) about our continuing necessity  to debate Northern Ireland business on the Floor of the House, and I hope very much that, before too long, we will see democracy in Northern Ireland restored to where it should be: Stormont.
However, we have to contemplate the possibility that that day may be some time off. I share the desire already expressed for some form of road map, some sense of when it may be necessary to bring powers back to Whitehall to make sure that Northern Ireland is properly governed, because there can be little doubt—my Select Committee has certainly taken evidence to this effect—that the good governance of Northern Ireland is suffering big time right now. Decisions that should be made in the interest of the ordinary lived experience of people in Northern Ireland are not being made because of the absence of ministerial decision making.
That situation is sustainable for a while but not for too long, and it has become increasingly clear to us that public services are suffering, that decisions are not being made and that infrastructure is not being put in place. Civil servants, who are trying to do their best, clearly have their limitations. That has been proved in the courts, despite the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and there will come a time when Ministers here in London will have to start making those decisions with a heavy heart. It probably is not acceptable to kick this particular can too much further down the road.
I share the temptation, expressed by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), to think about calling the Assembly to see who turns up, but he knows as well as I do that that recall would be very short-lived indeed because of the need for cross-community consent.

Gregory Campbell: The recall may well be short-lived, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that one significant advantage is that reconvening the Assembly would prove, beyond any doubt, who are the willing and who are the unwilling?

Andrew Murrison: That’s as may be, but the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my preamble that I am interested in ministerial decision making, and I rather suspect that very few decisions would be made by Ministers in the short space of time between the convening of the Assembly and it breaking down. Under the legislation, it certainly would not have legitimacy.

Sammy Wilson: I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s cynicism and caution in all of this, but as Sinn Féin, which I assume he was referring to, has publicly made it clear that it does not object to going back into the Assembly, does he not think this would at least be a useful exercise to test the sincerity of Sinn Féin spokesmen, who almost daily are now saying that they wish to go back into the Assembly? If the doors were opened and the Secretary of State invited all the parties, we would see whether or not those assurances, which are given with a straight face on the TV almost every night, are sincere.

Andrew Murrison: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has his own views on the sincerity of the party to which he refers, but the preoccupation of the Secretary of State is the good governance of Northern Ireland. In that respect, I suspect we would not be moved much further on were we to recall the Assembly and see who turns up.
The date of 25 August is interesting. As has been said, not much is likely to happen between now and then, particularly given the marching season. What happens on 25 August? It seems to me that there could be a throwing of the electoral dice in order to work out a way forward because something might turn up; the numbers may change and it may be possible to form an Executive. The sense is that that would not happen.
We are then of course faced with another important date: 31 October 2019, the latest in the deadlines for this Brexit journey. One thing has been made clear in terms of the chronology: in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there would have to be some form of direct rule from Westminster. That is the only certainty we have been given by Ministers. I would like to know from the Minister, therefore, whether it is his working assumption that, on 25 August, an election would be called in very short order, because that would give a small window between then and 31 October in which to hold elections and perhaps have a slightly different outcome from the one we have at the moment—that may just be crucial.
That is pretty much all I have to say. As the Minister has said, this is a short measure and it is unobjectionable. Like most right hon. and hon. Members, I cannot wait to get on to discuss seed potatoes, which is the second matter of Northern Ireland business we will be debating this evening.

Gavin Newlands: It is very much like groundhog day when it comes to Northern Ireland legislation, albeit secondary legislation in this case. I could set out the many reasons why it is imperative that the Executive be re-formed. The Minister would largely agree with that aim but disagree as to the UK Government’s role and leadership in achieving that thus far. I hope that the real depth of feeling exhibited in Northern Ireland in recent days, following Lyra McKee’s sad death, and the Secretary of State’s conversations in the coming days with party leaders will mark a real shift in the political situation, because we are in danger of slipping into a reality where functioning devolution in Northern Ireland is no longer the norm. Although much of the fault ultimately falls on its own representatives, it is far beyond time that the UK Government began a new round of inclusive talks in earnest, in order that they be the arbiter that is required to end this impasse. I reiterate that, if the Government cannot do this, they should consider bringing in independent arbitration.
The murder of Lyra McKee last week has demonstrated to all of us across these islands just how fragile and precious the peace process in Northern Ireland is and always has been. Following her murder, the public and political reaction has been united in sending two very clear messages. The first is a condemnation of those who carried out the killing. The second is a determination that politics, and nothing else, must fill the dangerous political vacuum that has been allowed to develop. So we will not be opposing this SI tonight, but I have a few questions for the Minister to address in his summing up.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to oppose the motion, but will he stand in our shoes and think about something? If Parliament  were talking about his part of the kingdom—his part of Scotland—he would oppose the motion tonight, would he not?

Gavin Newlands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and understand where it comes from. It is of great regret that we have to consider this SI at all. It is not comfortable for me to address situations in another part of the United Kingdom that should be devolved. There should be elected representatives in Northern Ireland, but—I hate this phrase—we are where we are. We have to ensure that the regulations are passed this evening, so we will not oppose them.
On Monday, the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party called on the Secretary of State to reconvene inclusive talks on power sharing this week. We in the SNP have been calling for such urgent talks at every turn. The Secretary of State has said that the restoration of devolution is her top priority, so will the Minister respond to the public and political calls to convene talks urgently? They should be proper talks, not just brief conversations between the Secretary of State and the party leaders. Why must there be such delay? I see no reason why talks should be dragged out beyond the local and European elections. The people of Northern Ireland deserved a functioning Assembly three years ago, and they deserve one now, not at some arbitrary future date. Can the Minister explain the justification for this—is the extension a deliberate attempt to stall the reconvening of talks until September?
In previous debates, Members from all parties have outlined concerns that the Northern Irish civil service has been stretched to its limit. Will the Minister update the House on the administrative pressures that the Northern Irish civil service is experiencing because of the absence of political direction? Given the vacuum in Northern Ireland, why has the British-Irish Inter- governmental Conference not met more regularly? What meetings are planned for the immediate future?
In conclusion, the SNP wants Northern Ireland to benefit from a fully functioning Executive and Assembly. That is in the interests of Northern Ireland, Scotland, the UK and, indeed, Europe. The continued absence of power sharing can no longer be tolerated. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from all its elected representatives and its Government.

Maria Caulfield: It is now more than two years since there was an Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, which now has the proud achievement of holding the world record for the longest time a country has gone without a Government. We members of the Select Committee have heard about the difficulties that has caused. We have listened to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland tell us about the daily struggles and not knowing whether he has enough money in his budgets to pay his officers, to order equipment or to make sure that the vital work that the PSNI needs to do can be done.
The Select Committee has listened to headteachers across all communities tell us about not only the school funding issues they face but the political reforms that  need to happen to enable schools in Northern Ireland to teach the next generation of children. The Salisbury review that was commissioned when the Northern Ireland Assembly was sitting is now gathering dust on tables because there is no one there to take the decisions forward. Northern Ireland potentially faces a teachers’ strike in Northern Ireland because teachers there have not had a pay rise since the Assembly fell and are now being paid 6.6% less than teachers in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Civil servants from various Northern Ireland Departments have told the Select Committee that they are doing their best to keep things going but cannot take the key political decisions that need to be taken by Ministers. The Department of Health’s suicide strategy could be saving lives as we speak, but is still on hold, and there is still no legislation on mental capacity in Northern Ireland, even though not only did the rest of the United Kingdom have the original Mental Capacity Act 2005, but the House passed the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill only a few weeks ago.
The MLAs who come before the Select Committee tell us there is no way there is going to be an Assembly any time soon. It is indeed depressing. Although extension after extension seems to be in vogue in this place on a variety of issues, we cannot carry on like that in Northern Ireland—we cannot carry on representing all the communities of the wonderful Northern Ireland in that way. It is ironic that on 22 April 1969, almost 50 years ago to the day, Bernadette Devlin stood in this place to give her maiden speech. It was a controversial maiden speech from a controversial Member of Parliament who, I am sure, would be no fan of me or of Members of the Democratic Unionist party. She stood as a Unity candidate and as a civil rights activist, campaigning for one man, one vote for all communities in Northern Ireland. How sad it is that 50 years later, when everyone in Northern Ireland has the right to vote, there are some communities that do not have representation either in this place or in the Assembly.
None the less, so much has been achieved in Northern Ireland. Despite the terrible incidents over the holiday weekend, we finally have peace. My concern is that, without an Assembly, a vacuum is being created, which paramilitary organisations on all sides are starting to fill. Those organisations are starting to indoctrinate young people who were not around at the time of the Good Friday agreement. Those young people do not have anyone speaking up for them, whether it is on health, education or crime. The vacuum is being filled by people who do not have the best interests of Northern Ireland at heart.
I really would like the Minister to outline what will happen in August if no Assembly has been formed. Will we see another election? Will we have an Assembly of the willing, or will we have an independent chair of talks to get things going? We need to have those answers this evening before we decide on the motion before us.
Northern Ireland is a wonderful place, notwithstanding what we have heard today both in the statement and in the motion before us. Despite not having an Assembly, Northern Ireland has the best performing education system for primary maths in Europe. Belfast is the world’s top destination for FinTech development. Northern Ireland has the highest availability of broadband in the United Kingdom, something that I am personally very envious of, because in Lewes we have multiple notspots  so any advice that can be given to East Sussex would be very welcome. There are also beautiful coastlines in Northern Ireland; I visited the Giant’s Causeway over Christmas. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was very generous in recommending hospitality in his constituency.
There is so much good news that comes out of Northern Ireland and so many wonderful people—whether they identify as British or Irish, Protestant or Catholic, of any faith or none, or as nationalist or Unionist, they are the most friendly, hard-working people one could ever wish to meet. Although there are tough decisions to be made, I urge all sides to get back around the table and form an Assembly and an Executive as soon as possible. There are some great stories to tell about Northern Ireland. Without an Assembly, we are missing some of the good news as well as the bad.

Nigel Dodds: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) who has spoken very eloquently about the attractions of Northern Ireland. She is right to point out, as we consider the dark news of the weekend’s events, the many tremendous assets that Northern Ireland has going for it, which include, most of all, its people despite everything that has happened in recent days. We have seen the worst of what can happen in Northern Ireland, but we have also seen the very best, with people coming together in a very, very strong way to send a powerful message about the future that we all want for our beloved country. Although we may have our disagreements—our strong disagreements—we all hail from Northern Ireland. We were born there, we live there, and our families grew up there. Our grandchildren, those of us who have them—I am blessed to have two young grandchildren—will live their lives there, and we want to see the very best for them. We are united in that great hope of wanting to see the very best for the future of our country.
Part of the sad fact of what we have to deal with is not just the human tragedy, which we spoke about earlier, and the terrible events in Londonderry, but the fact that we do not have a functioning political Assembly or a functioning Government in Northern Ireland. That is deeply regrettable. I remember the evening when Martin McGuinness came and told Arlene Foster, me and a number of our aides that he was going to resign. Even at that stage, we urged him to think again. We said to him, “If you collapse everything, it will be much, much harder to build it up again.” It was throwing away 10 years of progress over something that, by comparison with all that we have been through in Northern Ireland and have overcome, was a comparatively minor issue—important, but not the sort of issue that we had dealt with previously and had overcome. We urged him to think again, but Sinn Féin was determined to take this course of action. In the full knowledge of what might be at stake, it plunged Northern Ireland into a needless election. We have all seen what unnecessary elections sometimes bring about: very much unintended consequences. These elections have outcomes. Martin McGuinness called that election; Sinn Féin effectively called that election in the belief that it would strengthen its position and things would carry on with it in a more important, dominant position. Of course, it did not work out that way.
We are where we are, and this statutory instrument is a necessary one. Of course, we will not oppose it, but we do not believe that it is at all satisfactory in terms of the government of Northern Ireland. Quite frankly, we cannot go on like this for much longer, and I think the Secretary of State knows that. Indeed, the House needs to be reminded that when the Conservative party manifesto was written in 2017, the Government said that they wanted to
“avoid any return to direct rule, but in the continued absence of a functioning devolved administration, a Conservative government will do all that is necessary to provide the good governance and political stability that Northern Ireland needs, including political decision-making from Westminster”.
That was in the Conservative party manifesto in 2017, and it bears repeating today because what we are being offered in Northern Ireland is the worst form of government that can possibly be imagined anywhere in a modern, civilised, developed, democratic country.
The people who are running the Government in Northern Ireland are effectively senior civil servants. David Sterling, the head of the civil service, made it clear on 23 March last year that it was totally and utterly unacceptable for senior civil servants to be put in this position. Not only is this SI—and the primary legislation that underpins it and give it its locus—wrong in principle by having Northern Ireland governed in this way; it is also a flagrant breach of the Conservative party manifesto, on which this Government stood and on which they are supposed to be proceeding.

Andrew Murrison: I do not disagree with anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he himself said that when the institutions collapsed, he pointed out to the late Martin McGuinness how difficult it would be to rebuild them. Is it not also the case that it would be less likely that the institutions would be capable of being re-established were powers to be brought back to Westminster?

Nigel Dodds: We are now two years into this limboland, which is utterly unacceptable in its own terms, but it is not correct to suggest that this is having the effect of bringing about the restoration of devolution. The people of Northern Ireland deserve proper government, with accountable decisions being made. These are normal, democratic, basic fundamental rights.
Let me give the House a couple of examples. We were talking earlier about violence and paramilitarism in Northern Ireland—about the still pernicious role of paramilitaries on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. I have experience of that in my constituency of Belfast North, on the loyalist side as well as the republican side. The head of the Organised Crime Task Force says that not having Ministers taking decisions is hampering its pursuit of paramilitary and criminal assets. The unexplained wealth orders, whereby people are forced to provide evidence as to how they have gained their wealth, cannot be implemented in Northern Ireland. These are common-sense measures that would empower the security forces and the agencies of the Government to tackle criminality and paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, but they are simply left to wither on the vine. That is utterly unacceptable. These things are now well past the time when they need to be brought into force, and that has to be done, one way or another, through Ministers.
The Chairman of the Select Committee referred to the impact of Brexit. I have heard the argument that if we leave the European Union, direct rule will have to be implemented in Northern Ireland. I have read reports that apparently this has been considered such a terrible prospect that the UK should remain in the European Union for as long as it takes to avoid direct rule in Northern Ireland. I point out to the House that we had periods—considerable periods—of direct rule after the 2003 Assembly elections when Sinn Féin refused to decommission its weapons. It was in government but it was still murdering people on the streets through the direct action against drugs, I think it was called. It was still holding on to its arms; it had not decommissioned them. So the Government of the day—a Labour Government—had to introduce direct rule in order to deal with the matter. Of course, people accepted that there had to be proper governance. It was not permanent; it was interim. It was not intended to last for ever. It was designed to give some semblance of good governance to Northern Ireland while these issues were resolved.
Arlene Foster, our party leader, has made it clear that she is prepared to form the Executive in Northern Ireland tomorrow, along with the other parties entitled to seats in the Executive, if the Assembly is called. I would agree with what Members have said in the House tonight about calling the Assembly. Let us see who is willing to go into government and who is not. Let us test it with people who talk about wanting to get government in Northern Ireland. Arlene Foster made an offer last year in which she said, “Let’s get the Assembly up and going, to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with—health, education, schools, the environment, roads, infrastructure—and let’s talk about the other issues”, which had suddenly became evident after the elections were called, “in parallel.”
In case anyone thinks that this is an open-ended process designed to lure Sinn Féin into the Executive and the Assembly without any kind of finality or prospect of getting agreement on these issues, we can time-limit it and say, “Well, the Assembly will fall again if we do not get these matters resolved.” That was dismissed within 30 minutes of the offer being made. This week we heard what Sinn Féin’s position was. This was said on Easter Sunday by Mary Lou McDonald: “Let us have a British-Irish partnership—a joint authority between the Irish Government and the British Government—to get things implemented, and then call the Assembly.” Let us be clear in this House tonight about what is happening in terms of the willingness of parties to enter government.
People have talked about what will happen on 25 August. The Secretary of State is clear that under this SI she will be under an obligation to call elections, but then she was under an obligation to call elections in 2017, when nearly a whole year went by and then we introduced retrospective legislation to extend the date to March 2019. So let us not get too excited about what might happen on 25 August. One thing that should certainly happen by then is that good governance should be returned to Northern Ireland in one shape or form.
I am intrigued that the explanatory memorandum, which was prepared by the Northern Ireland Office, says in paragraph 12:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.
There is no, or no significant, impact on the public sector.
An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector.”
How can the Northern Ireland Office seriously suggest that there is no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies? There is a massive impact in Northern Ireland every single day as a result of the failure to do not only what is right but what the Conservative party promised to do in its manifesto.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am reluctant to see this legislation come forward. Like all my colleagues, I have been out on the doorsteps in my constituency over the last few days and most of the Easter period. I have been in Lisburn, Moira, Hillsborough and Dromore, talking to people about politics in the local government elections and supporting our DUP candidates. At door after door, the message has been clear: “When are we getting Stormont back? When will we have a functioning Assembly and Executive?” At one level, I am encouraged by that, because it clearly demonstrates that the people of Northern Ireland have taken ownership of the devolved institutions, flawed though they may be and difficult though they are to operate. There is no doubt that a strong majority of people in Northern Ireland recognise that governance in Northern Ireland on the day-to-day issues—the bread and butter issues—is best done by local politicians in the Assembly and the Executive. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State agree with that.
That is not to say that when we had direct rule in the past, we did not have a form of government that functioned in Northern Ireland. It was not the preferred form, but I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds); I disagree that direct rule is somehow undesirable or undemocratic. When I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, Northern Ireland was under direct rule. As my right hon. Friend said, even since the 1998 agreement, we have had periods of direct rule, and government is provided.
At the moment, like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am frustrated, because I encounter on a daily basis issues on which decisions need to be taken at ministerial level and are not being taken. The people I represent are being affected in terms of healthcare provision, education funding and a multiplicity of other areas. Justice is another such area—appointments need to be made but cannot, and decisions are required but cannot be taken, and it is having an impact on the people whom my party and I represent. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that there is an impact. We cannot say, as the explanatory memorandum suggests, that there is no discernible impact, because there is.
I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) for her comments. Despite all this, Northern Ireland is doing well. I am tired of listening to some political commentators who have never done politics talking Northern Ireland down all the time, despite the fact that we have the lowest unemployment we have had for years, that we are still attracting investment and creating jobs and that we have more visitors coming to Northern Ireland than we have for decades. There is a lot of positivity, but we need a functioning Government at Stormont.

Sylvia Hermon: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say, as we watched the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland such as the Alliance party, the DUP and Sinn Féin coming to the Creggan at the weekend after Lyra McKee’s murder—and it was murder: it was not an accident; it was murder—that there was an expectation throughout the community that she would not have died in vain, and she cannot be allowed to have died in vain. The people of Northern Ireland would love to see—I am speaking as an independent Member, but I reflect this to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—a genuine, sincere coming together of the political leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland to get our Assembly back again, which would be a wonderful memorial to Lyra.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am absolutely happy to reassure the hon. Lady that if the Secretary of State were to convene the Assembly on Thursday, the day after the funeral of Lyra McKee, the Democratic Unionist party from its leader down would be there, and all our MLAs would be there and ready to take up office and to get on with the job of providing good government for Northern Ireland. I say that to the hon. Lady without any preconditions whatsoever.
We are ready to do the job; this party is ready to act; and I long for the day when we see local Ministers back in Stormont again. However, that does require leadership, and when I consider the issues that need to be dealt with, they pale into insignificance compared with the issues that we have dealt with in the past. As I have often said, the mountains in front of us are no higher than the mountains we have already climbed in Northern Ireland. Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady that the best and strongest message we can send—to that masked gunman in the Creggan, to those who cheered him on and to those who walk the streets of Dublin in their paramilitary garb, wanting to drag us back to the dark days of the past—is to get Stormont back up and running. That is absolutely the case, and it is echoed in the Belfast Telegraph editorial this very day.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), the parliamentary leader of our party, has said, as our party leader said in the Creggan and as we as a party say in unison on these Benches today, we are ready to govern and we are ready to take our places in the Assembly and Executive. We do not want what has been brought before the House this evening; we want to get on with the job and sort out the issues, as we provide good government for Northern Ireland. I hope that day will come before we reach the expiry date in this. Let us not operate on the basis that that is a target date. Let us operate on the basis that we need government back in Northern Ireland tomorrow. The sooner we get it, the better for all the people of Northern Ireland, and we renew our commitment to do that.

Jim Shannon: I am very pleased to speak in this debate and to follow my colleagues, who have made some very good contributions. I believe we cannot continue to do what we have been doing for the past six months, because here we are, asking for yet another extension—an extension to the indecision, an extension to the miry clay, an extension to the freeze on  moving forward, an extension to the cessation of legislation, an extension to the absolute power of unelected civil servants and an extension to the misery of the people of Northern Ireland, who are crying out for leadership, for a working Government and for their appointed—I say that very respectfully—Secretary of State to start making decisions.
Yesterday, I had the privilege and the honour to walk with the Apprentice Boys of Derry in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and we had what I would refer to as a cultural extravaganza. Somewhere in the region of 10,000 people walked and were watching the parade, and there was not one bit of bother. Compare that with the balaclava-ed, military-uniformed marching in parts of Northern Ireland and in Dublin—my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) mentioned that—with complete disregard for the other cultures across the Province, and it is understandable that we get annoyed.
We cannot ignore the issues that are brought to us on the doorsteps. I made it my business, during the time I was off, to be on the doors with my local councillors who worked for me in previous Assembly elections and in Westminster elections. I wanted to return that accolade and support them, and I will continue to do so this week. To be fair, my hon. Friends have done likewise. I say with the greatest respect that the key issue raised with us on the doors is not the Irish language. The key issues for the people I speak to are quite simple: education, health, roads, farming and fishing. Those are the things that the people of my constituency want, so you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why we get ourselves a bit annoyed with Sinn Féin’s intransigence.
The agri-food sector in my constituency contributes greatly to jobs, with more than 2,000-odd in the factories and probably double or triple that on the farms and in the businesses that feed into the process. We cannot ignore the issues of that sector. Because we do not have a working Assembly, opportunities are being held up for those in the sector who want to apply for grants to extend their factories.
I understand that time is of the essence, so I want quickly to give two examples of things that have happened to me in my constituency office over the past two weeks that explain why people are frustrated. While I am saying this, I am aware that I will be trotting through the Lobby with the Secretary of State because we have no option other than to extend the provisions, accept continual stalemate, and sit and watch our people crying out for action to be taken.
Picture this: a young teacher has a baby on 1 July. The baby is four weeks premature, with the little issues that come from that. In England, the child’s parents would be allowed, in co-operation with the health visitor, to hold back the little one for another year so that he was not so far behind. The mother, who just happens to be a teacher, would be able to use her expertise to say, “My son is not far enough caught up, so we will let him do a year in nursery.” That would not be an issue on the UK mainland.
The Northern Ireland Assembly began the legislation process to enable informed parental consent to play a part in the education of premature babies in Northern Ireland as well, but because Sinn Féin has pulled out and consistently been allowed to hold the entire country—  every other person in Northern Ireland—to ransom, this mother, who, as a teacher, understands her son’s educational needs, must sit idly by and watch a massive schooling mistake being made, without being able to do anything about it. That is not okay. Will the Minister of State come with me to that lady’s door and take the time to explain to her how his inability to make this hard decision will impact on her child’s experience in school? Will he or the Secretary of State do that? I say to them: “Be ready for a roasting when you get to the doorstep.”
Will the Secretary of State come to the Ulster Hospital and explain to a family why the desire to placate a republican agenda means that their grandmother must lie in a corridor in the Ulster Hospital for 36 hours before she is seen? I say to the Secretary of State with the greatest respect that she was happy to make the trip to Northern Ireland to court businesses for the remain agenda, but nothing has publicly been done, as far as I can see, to make things better in the Ulster Hospital, and my constituents cannot see things getting any better.
Will the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or whoever has the time to do so explain to the people of the Province the justification for this placation of republican terrorism, which has not kept peace intact but has seen the murder of an innocent bystander, Lyra McKee, despite her appeasement of that community? Sinn Féin obviously have no control over dissident republicans in Londonderry or anywhere else.
Will the Secretary of State or the Minister of State do what we need them to do and take control? Will the Secretary of State determine to have her legal advisers find a way to hold a democratic election and allow those who will take their seats with no red lines whatsoever to do so, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), the DUP’s leader in Westminster, has said? Will she freeze out those who hold us to ransom and stop decisions being made? People are dying needlessly in our health service due to the lack of decisions. Some of my constituents have been waiting for over two years for operations. I have to say this, Madam Deputy Speaker: some have waited but have never had their operation, because they have passed on in that time.
Will the Secretary of State determine that Northern Ireland is not to be held hostage, and that only those willing to work with other democratically elected Members with no conditions are allowed to stand? It is time we think outside the box. It is time we did something different. It is time we urged our Secretary of State and her Minister of State, who is here to answer the debate, to do just that. I fear that I already know the answer, but please prove me wrong. I will vote for the extension—I will support it, because I must—but for the sake of my people in Strangford and the people of Northern Ireland, please do something to help my nation.

John Penrose: I am delighted that everybody accepts, with a degree of reluctance and frustration, that the statutory instrument, while not wanted, is necessary. I thank everybody for saying, albeit with a heavy heart— I think that goes for all of us—that they will support it. I appreciate and recognise the degree of cross-party support. It is more powerful because it is cross-party.
That is not say that the frustrations are not real, or that those frustrations have not been clearly and effectively expressed this evening. We have heard a whole litany of examples, from all sides of the House, from the lengthening list of decisions not being taken because Stormont is not currently operational. We have heard examples from all sorts of people. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who just spoke, gave the examples of a lady with a premature baby and a grandmother left waiting on a hospital trolley for too long. There were other examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) gave a long list of missed opportunities, as did the Select Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The repeated refrain from all sides is that we cannot keep on, in the Chair’s phrase, kicking the can down the road. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said that the mountains in front of us are no higher than those we have scaled in the past, but he also said that bread and butter issues are far better done by locally elected politicians in Stormont.

Paul Girvan: In light of recent legislation relating to the Buick case and permanent secretaries needing cover to allow them to make decisions, permanent secretaries are still not signing off non-controversial decisions. They are using the frustration of no Assembly as an excuse not to do business.

John Penrose: I am sure everybody here would appreciate that the senior civil servants in the Northern Ireland civil service are faced with a very, very difficult position. They are being required to keep the wheels of good government turning. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 equips them to do that, but clearly they have to be extremely careful not to take new policy decisions which should rightly and constitutionally be taken by elected politicians in Stormont. That would clearly be wrong and outwith the powers in the 2018 Act.
That perhaps answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) about the stresses on the Administration. The answer is simply that: people are being asked to operate up to the limits of what they can decently and constitutionally do. It requires a great deal of care and civil service professionalism to ensure they go up to those limits but no further. I do not think we can reasonably ask them to continue doing that for any great deal of time longer, not least because, as people have been rightly pointing out, the list of problems left unsolved because they require a political decision is getting longer every day.

Gavin Robinson: Just to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) made, I understand the caution in the Minister’s response and the balance that senior civil servants have to reach in the public interest. There is a matrix in the Act for how those decisions should be made, but the truth is that some permanent secretaries and Departments are more willing to use the powers afforded to them under the Act than others. There needs to be a fair appreciation of that and an encouragement to the head of the civil service to say that for as long as the Act pertains, for as long as we do not have active devolved institutions, and for as long as  there is a democratic deficit and decisions can be made, they should be made. I encourage him to meet us to go through that in finer detail, because some permanent secretaries are using it to its full force. Others are not and they should be encouraged to do so.

John Penrose: I share the frustration on both sides about this issue. We need to be extremely careful. It may be clear to one person on one side of the House, or to another person on the other side, that a particular Department in the Northern Ireland civil service is acting to the full extent of its powers or perhaps drawing back a little further from using those full powers, but the point is that at some stage, that becomes a political judgment rather than a professional civil service judgment. When it becomes a political judgment, the answer at that point, of course—as many people on both sides of the debate have rightly said so far this evening—is for there to be an Executive at Stormont and for the devolved Assembly to come back into play. Ultimately, until that happens, the judgment of the civil servants has to be just that—within the scope of the Act. It is very hard for politicians to say that this civil servant is doing a good job and that civil servant is doing a bad job unless we get the politicians in place in Stormont who have the natural legal locus and the democratic mandate to do so.

Emma Little Pengelly: Although the Minister has stated that this could become a political judgment in terms of civil servants, the reality is that the law is there. There are parameters around the exercise of the powers given within that legislation. We would like to see consistency in the discretion that each of the permanent secretaries or senior civil servants have. I asked the Secretary of State on a previous occasion to consider looking at guidance being issued to permanent secretaries to get that type of consistency. What all of us are finding at the moment is that there is a disparity in the way that permanent secretaries and civil servants are operating the powers that they have been given objectively in the Act.

John Penrose: I accept that there will be different views about whether some Departments are using those powers to their full extent and others are not. To coin the phrase used by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who spoke for the Labour party, we are being asked to tread down a primrose path in saying that this particular part of the Northern Ireland civil service is using those powers to its full extent and this one is not. Ultimately, this has to be something that is decided, led and ultimately arbitrated by the devolved Assembly and devolved Ministers. All of us feel this frustration, but it is becoming a rather circular argument if we say that we should be trying to push them one way or the other. We have to set those rules, but ultimately, if people are not happy with the way that they are being applied, provided that they are being used within the rules of the law that we have set in the EFEF Act it is then up to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am afraid that it is as fundamental, as simple and as difficult a truth as that. The only answer is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to come back.

David Simpson: The Minister has said a number of times that he shares the frustration of what my colleagues have said tonight, but why will  the Government not go ahead and call the Assembly? Those who turn up can get it moving and working for the people of Northern Ireland—why will the Government not do that?

John Penrose: I bring the hon. Gentleman good news. My colleague the Secretary of State has many, many talents and powers but one of them is not to “call the Assembly”, to use this sort of portentous phrase, which a number of us have been using so far this evening. In fact, the Assembly is still legally in existence. If MLAs want to turn up tomorrow, or perhaps the day after tomorrow, given the sad and tragic events that are happening tomorrow, nobody needs to call them to do so. They have a legal right to turn up, open the doors and do so. When they do turn up, they will be entitled to select a Speaker and then choose a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. It does not require the Secretary of State to call them. We have heard several calls this evening for a trial to see whether people would turn up and do that. If MLAs from any side of the community and from any political party are so minded, they can do that. I will leave it up them, of course, as directly locally elected politicians, to decide if they wish to do that, but they are legally entitled to do so.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. I am conscious of the passage of time.

Nigel Dodds: rose—

John Penrose: I will give way very briefly and then try to answer one more question before sitting down.

Nigel Dodds: I admire the Minister greatly. He is doing a valiant job with the only two paragraphs in the SI, which he mentioned, so I understand that he does not have a lot of material, but he is trying to put everything on to other people, saying it is up to the parties to call the Assembly and so on. Does he not take any responsibility for the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, which his Government are responsible for, in breach of their own manifesto commitments? Will he not answer that point?

John Penrose: The right hon. Gentleman leads me on to my next point, which is a response to the several people who asked for a roadmap. Clearly, it will depend on the actions of the individual parties, but one of the things the Government are responsible for, which we have been trying to do and will continue to try to do, is to get the talks to bring Stormont back together again started, get them continued and get them successfully concluded.
Several people asked about the roadmap. As the Secretary of State set out to the House on 21 March, she has spoken to the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government several times in recent weeks. In those discussions, all the parties have been consistent in their commitment to restoring a power-sharing executive and the other political institutions set out in the Belfast agreement. We believe that the five main parties are in favour of a short and focused set of roundtable talks to restore devolution at the earliest opportunity, and the Irish Government also support this approach. Any such talks process would involve the UK Government, the five main parties and the Irish Government and would take place in full accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach.
During the statement earlier, several people said, without wishing to prejudge or anticipate anything with the funeral of Lyra McKee due to take place tomorrow, that there might just be a glimmer of light—a change of view and tone in Northern Ireland—which is tremendously important. If it is the case, this kind of approach will be necessary. I completely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. We need to convene those talks, if we possibly can, and thereby create the breathing space in which that change of tone and approach can flourish and develop.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

John Penrose: I was about to sit down. I have one minute, but then I really must conclude.

Sylvia Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to take his one minute. Earlier this evening, no one in the Chamber could have been unmoved by the dignified and moving tribute the Secretary of State paid to Lyra McKee. How will she and the Northern Ireland Office translate that tribute into tangible change in Northern Ireland? People have a right to know. We want change in the Northern Ireland—led by the Secretary of State.

John Penrose: I think I just set out the next steps. Clearly, it will then be for the people involved in the talks to bring them to fruition. They have to be led and convened by the Government, but they will require everybody else’s involvement too. I have laid out what the process will be. I agree that no one could have failed to be moved. There is an opportunity here, and we must grasp it if we can. The SI creates the moment—that breathing space—that might allow it to happen. I hope that everybody will grasp the opportunity thus created with both hands.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Extension of Period for Executive Formation) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 616), which were laid before this House on 21 March, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Robert Goodwill: I beg to move,
That the draft Animal Health, Seed Potatoes and Food (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 3 April, be approved.
Let me first echo the points that were made during the last debate, not least by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I too would much prefer decisions of this type to be made by a functioning democratic Executive in Stormont.
This is one of a number of affirmative procedure statutory instruments to be considered as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. It will ensure that legislation concerning the control of salmonella in the poultry sector, beef and veal labelling, and seed potato inspections and marketing will continue to function in Northern Ireland after exit.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the legislation apply only to Northern Ireland; is this a separate order for us?

Robert Goodwill: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but this applies solely to Northern Ireland. Obviously, it applies under different legislation, but the instrument applies specifically to Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal exit from the European Union.

David Simpson: The subject of seed potatoes has been raised with businesses in my constituency, which have been told that if there is no deal they cannot export them to the Republic of Ireland.

Robert Goodwill: That is indeed the case. Seed potato production in Northern Ireland is less important than it used to be, but 318 hectares of certified seed are still grown there by about 50 growers. Of the 4,000 tonnes marketed, 2,000 were marketed in the Republic, 1,000 were marketed in Northern Ireland, and 1,000 were exported to countries including Egypt, Morocco and the Canary islands. In the event of a no-deal scenario, 2,000 tonnes will be lost. The main varieties grown for the southern market, including Kerr’s Pink, Maris Piper and British Queen, are not generally in demand in the UK market, and in the event of no deal an adjustment will therefore be necessary. Growers may wish to switch to new varieties such as Miranda and Opal.

Jim Shannon: Has the Minister had an opportunity to engage in any discussions with the Ulster Farmers Union or the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association? It is important for consultation to be wide enough to involve those organisations, which represent the farming community throughout Northern Ireland.

Robert Goodwill: There was no need for formal consultation, because this is a “no change” piece of legislation. It allows the current situation to continue in the event of a no-deal Brexit. However, conversations took place with many stakeholders, including representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union, who were content that the regulations maintained the status quo.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Did the Minister speak to the companies that process potatoes in Northern Ireland? The two main processors are Glens of Antrim Potatoes Ltd, which is in my constituency, and Wilson’s Country Ltd. It is essential for them to know that this is going to happen, and that their interests have been taken into consideration.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman is right: the potato processing sector is very important. Seed potato production in Northern Ireland is worth about £2 million a year. Ware potatoes are not grown solely for ware, but are also a by-product of seed potato production. Potatoes that are too big to use for seed purposes go into the ware market, which is worth £20 million, but the processing will value-add £200 million. In Scarborough, in my constituency, McCain Foods processes potatoes and slices 1,000 tonnes per day. The processing sector is vital, not least because of the employment that it provides not just for UK citizens but for EU citizens who come here to work in the sector.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister realise that the scale of potato production on the British mainland is so much more vast than it is in Northern Ireland? In fact, one processing line in England could probably take over the entire capacity of the Northern Irish processers. They have to be protected; otherwise, we will see our potato industry in Northern Ireland diminished.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman makes another very valid point. That is why it is so important that we get this piece of legislation through to enable the current situation to continue.
Northern Ireland people are keen to support the crisps produced locally in Northern Ireland. If I may, I will also just touch on Comber new potatoes. They are renowned throughout Northern Ireland, which grows the variety Maris Piper in the main. They are a protected designation of potato, and I gather that they are grown in the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That is another important part of the Northern Ireland potato market.

David Simpson: The Minister talks about protected species, and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is also a protected species. However, on seed potato, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned Wilson’s Country in my constituency. It will lose £60,000 per week if it cannot export seed potatoes to the Republic of Ireland.

Robert Goodwill: That explains why it is so important that we get a deal across the line. Indeed, having had at least three or four opportunities to vote for that deal, we certainly need to see an orderly way forward.
Let me just comment on the point about the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) needing some sort of protection. I do not think he needs any protection at all. My experience of him in this Chamber is that he can very much stand up for himself and indeed for his constituents, who are involved in not only the agricultural industry but the fishing industry in a very important way.

Jim Shannon: Obviously, in my previous job in the Northern Ireland Assembly, one of the things we tried to do was to ensure that the EU had a protected  position for the Comber potato. It is renowned not just across the whole of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but across the UK mainland as well. Other Members here may say that their potatoes are good; I can only say that ours are the best.

Robert Goodwill: Who could possibly argue with that? I have to say, however, that the new potatoes from Jersey and Pembrokeshire do hit the market slightly sooner than the Comber potatoes. However, the protection of particular locally grown produce is very important. Indeed, we have Lough Neagh eels, which are protected, and Armagh Bramley apples, which also have a great following, not only across the water in Northern Ireland, but here on the mainland too.

Andrew Murrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of seed potatoes in respect of Northern Ireland and Brexit is because of the possibility of no deal? In that case, growers in Northern Ireland, whose seed potatoes are world renowned, not least because of their disease resistance, will have to change the kind of seed potatoes they produce—he touched on this in his remarks—if they are to export to markets outwith the European Union. That is because what is good for the European Union is not necessarily going to be appropriate for markets in, for example, north Africa. Despite the two years cited in the regulations, it is absolutely imperative that we get this measure on the statute book. If we do not, it is going to be very important for growers in Northern Ireland to be able to diversify in the way I have just described so that they can address markets outside the European Union, which presents a huge opportunity for them.

Robert Goodwill: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is absolutely right as regards the importance of getting this piece of legislation through and on the statute book. Indeed, the quality of seed potatoes produced not only in Northern Ireland but in Scotland and on the higher ground in England is world renowned. Virus diseases can be controlled using propagation methods and the strictures on growing potatoes for seed. That means that we have a world-class standing in terms of the quality of seed that we can produce, with very low levels of the virus diseases that can affect potatoes. That means that we have to continue to keep those standards up.
Let me turn to the other measures in this statutory instrument. The Control of Salmonella in Poultry Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2008, the Control of Salmonella in Broiler Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2009, the Control of Salmonella in Turkey Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) Order 2010, the Beef and Veal Labelling Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 and the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 are the measures being amended under this instrument.
These regulations make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. Those adjustments represent no changes of policy; nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public. The Sifting Committees considered this draft legislation on 21 February 2019. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that this instrument be debated  in Parliament as it contained proposed amendments to the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which was in draft at the time. However, this element was laid before Parliament on 5 April 2019 and has been approved by the House.
Due to the decision of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, parts 5 and 6 of the draft regulations have been omitted and included in the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and the draft regulation has been renamed the Animal Health, Seed Potatoes and Food (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. So all the contentious or controversial aspects have already been removed, leaving this important but rather hollowed-out measure, which lacks the points that were of interest when it was referred. The draft instrument is being introduced under the correcting powers in sections 8(1) and 14(1) of paragraph 1 of schedule 4 and paragraph 21 of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Principally, it makes amendments to address technical operability issues as a consequence of EU exit.
This instrument applies to the fields of animal health, the marketing of seed potatoes and the labelling of beef and veal, which are devolved matters for Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are making similar changes by means of their own secondary legislation within their areas of legislative competence. I know that Opposition Members will mention consultations—indeed, they were mentioned earlier by Democratic Unionist party colleagues—so I will address this question for them. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult publicly on the instrument, officials engaged with key stakeholders covering different sectors to discuss the amendments that would be required and provided the opportunity to gain views on the draft instrument before it was laid. Stakeholders principally included the Ulster Farmers Union.
In regard to the structure of this SI, part 2 of the instrument amends the Control of Salmonella in Poultry Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2008, the Control of Salmonella in Broiler Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2009 and the Control of Salmonella in Turkey Flocks Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2010, to maintain and ensure high standards of poultry health. Part 3 amends the Beef and Veal Labelling Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010, providing for the provision of information for non-prepackaged meat of bovine animals aged 12 months or less at the point of sale, establishing a system for identification and labelling of beef and beef products. This ensures the maintenance of the marketing standards of meat and bovine animals. Part 4 amends the Seed Potato Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016, to ensure that high plant health and marketing standards are maintained. It also provides for a one-year interim period during which EU seed potatoes will continue to be recognised for production and marketing in Northern Ireland to ensure the continuity of supplies of seed potatoes.
What are the main changes? When I talk about changes, I mean changes to the text to cater for Brexit, rather than any substantive or policy changes. As with other instruments, various terms in the regulations or the directives that relate to the EU are amended to be relevant to the UK. The instrument updates references  to retained EU legislation in parts 2, 3 and 4. Part 4 also introduces legislation that ensures that the legal requirements for producing and marketing seed potatoes are in place after the UK has left the EU.
There are three main changes. The first involves grade names. The current legislation is the Seed Potatoes (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2016, which includes all the requirements from the EU directive on seed potatoes—that is, directive 2002/56/EC. In those regulations, seed potatoes are sold in various grades, called union grades, depending on the age and quality of the seed. The instrument renames the union grades as “UK grades”. The actual names of the grades—PB, S, SE and E—are unchanged, as are the requirements to be met for each of the grades.
Secondly, if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement, UK seed potatoes will be prohibited from being marketed in the EU. In those circumstances, the UK could also prohibit the marketing in the UK of seed potatoes produced in the EU and Switzerland.
However, the varieties currently purchased by UK growers from the EU are not currently available within the UK. England, Wales and Northern Ireland have therefore agreed that EU seed potatoes will continue to be permitted to be marketed for a period of one year after exit day. That should give the UK industry some time to produce some of these varieties themselves. The instrument gives effect to that change.
For a variety of seed potato to be marketed within the UK, it must be listed on the UK national list or the EU common catalogue. After the UK has left the EU, the instrument will permit the marketing of varieties that are on the EU common catalogue, but not on the UK national list, for a period of two years. That will give the companies that control such varieties time to enter them on the UK national list and will also allow UK growers to continue to have access to those varieties in the interim.
This instrument will ensure that the high biosecurity and marketing standards achieved in both animal and plant health in Northern Ireland are maintained when we leave the European Union, and I commend it to the House.

Sandy Martin: This legislation is important for the protection of human, animal and plant health and for maintaining important safeguards to ensure food safety information for consumers. The Government can easily ensure the maintenance of such safeguards by agreeing with Labour that there should be a permanent and comprehensive UK-EU customs union, close alignment with the single market, dynamic alignment on rights and protections, and clear commitments on participation in EU agencies. That would ensure that we continue to share knowledge and expertise with EU bodies, avoiding extra costs and burdens for business, saving jobs and protecting our livestock, trees and plants from pests and diseases.
This statutory instrument is another in the series of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EU-exit SIs, of which there have been over 120 to date, using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make technical changes to retained EU and domestic legislation. This SI covers salmonella in poultry, labelling of beef and veal, and seed potato marketing,  all of which are devolved matters for Northern Ireland, and it is a real shame that there is no functioning Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise it.
Labour believes that it is vital that we maintain protections for imported eggs and poultry food products. Despite the discreditable chlorinating process that is supposed to prevent infection, citizens in the US still suffer around 1.2 million cases of salmonella food poisoning a year, and there were 450 deaths last year. What is the current assessment of the level of risk of salmonella in poultry in Northern Ireland? What assessment has been made of the level of risk of salmonella in eggs and poultry food products expected to be imported into Northern Ireland after the UK leaves the EU?
Northern Irish seed potatoes are highly prized and commercially valuable, so it is important to maintain the EU classification and certification regime and protect them from imports that might be of inferior quality or bring in pests and diseases. Similarly, the high quality of Northern Irish beef needs continuing protection via the EU labelling regulations.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Northern Ireland processes about 2.6 million birds every week. The poultry industry is one of our most vital and supplies about 30% of the entire UK market. Protecting the sector is much more important to our farmers and processors than anything else, and we do not want to implement anything that would damage our local UK market.

Sandy Martin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his strong point. Clearly, where the major market is within the UK, that needs to be protected. However, there is always the danger not just that other markets will be lost, but that the UK market may be lost if inferior and cheaper poultry were able to be imported into the UK. The protection of good-quality food from the EU is one of the major planks that it has operated and this SI is an attempt to try to salvage some of that, but whether it will be successful largely depends on all sorts of other issues.
The succession of different versions of this statutory instrument, each with errors and omissions, does not inspire confidence. Despite now being on its fourth version, there may still be an error in regulation 9(b), which amends regulation 4(3)(b) of the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. Can the Minister confirm that the substitute wording should have two “where”s, rather than one “where” and one “were”? It is a minor point but, with the vast amount of work being done on all these SIs over a very short period of time, there have been grammatical errors that might lead to them being difficult to enforce.
Why was Regulation (EC) No. 2160/2003 not included in the three Northern Ireland poultry salmonella orders referred to in regulations 2, 3 and 4 when they were originally made? Numerous changes have been made between the four different versions of this SI that have been presented to Parliament so far. Can the Minister explain whether there is any significance and why the wording of regulation 8(f) and (g) in the previous version has been omitted, why the reference to point A7 of annex III was added to proposed new paragraph (b)(iii) of regulation 2 of the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 and why the wording in regulation 9(a) and (c) was omitted in this version? Various changes  have been made, and it is extremely difficult to follow them and to work out why they have been made. Will the Minister commit to correcting any errors that are identified and to ensuring Parliament has the opportunity to consider how stakeholders can be better engaged in the scrutiny of secondary legislation in future, as suggested by Green Alliance?
After 120 different statutory instruments over the past three months, I put on record my admiration for the stupendous amount of hard work done by civil servants in producing all this necessary work, and I crave the Minister’s indulgence in also registering my profound thanks, and the profound thanks of my hon. Friends, to our Opposition staff for their enormous work in preparing us for these statutory instruments. In particular, I thank Roxanne Mashari, Rob Wakely, Will Murray and Eliot Andersen.
We take all these matters extremely seriously and intend to do everything we can to maintain and enhance this country’s record of high standards and scientific excellence as we prepare to leave the EU. I hope the Minister will respond seriously on the matters I have raised. Having said that, we do not intend to vote against the regulations on this occasion.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I have a few points to add to what has already been said in this important debate. I commend the Department for bringing forward these regulations and for being on top of it.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) spoke about the issue of scrutiny, and of course we would prefer all these matters to be taken through the Northern Ireland Assembly. I used to chair the Assembly’s agriculture committee, and this place has probably given the seed potatoes bit of these regulations just as much scrutiny as they got from the Northern Ireland Assembly, so the House should not take as punishment the criticism that seed potatoes are not getting enough scrutiny tonight. It is usually just two or three Members who care about these issues when they are addressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is not to shirk the responsibility we would like the Assembly to have once again for these matters.
Northern Ireland produces the best, the tastiest and the most traceable food in all the United Kingdom. It is what we are expert in doing, and any Member who visits Northern Ireland, whether they are drinking liquids from Northern Ireland—Coca-Cola, of course—or indulging in our best food, knows we produce really good food. It is in all our interests to make sure that our primary industry is protected and assisted at this time of immense, radical change.

Robert Goodwill: I will briefly wind up and answer one or two points that have been raised. I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about the quality of Northern Ireland’s food. Indeed, I believe the Ulster fry is the pinnacle of Ulster cuisine in the ingenious way in which it manages to incorporate both potatoes and lard. I always look forward to an Ulster fry when I visit Northern Ireland.
A number of points made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) are not specifically relevant to what is before us today, which is about the quality of  produce produced in Northern Ireland. Matters relating to chlorinated chicken or other issues as regards future international trade deals are important, but they are not specifically before us today. He raised a couple of technical issues where we may or may not have made errors. I would be pleased for us to look at those again and correct any errors we may have made. As I said in relation to an earlier statutory instrument, the quantity of legislation we have had to go through means it is almost certain that we would have made some mistakes, and if they are brought to our attention—or if we notice them first—we will make sure they are put right.
I repeat that this statutory instrument is a “business as usual” SI. It does not make changes; it allows a continuity of the situation should we fall into a no-deal Brexit. If, as I seem to gather from what the hon. Gentleman was saying, he is concerned that we may leave the EU without a deal, the matter is simple: he should, together with his colleagues in the Labour party, vote for the deal to ensure an orderly departure from the EU and to ensure that we move into the implementation period, when many of these sorts of issues can be dealt with in the fullness in time and be properly dealt with. I am disappointed that, particularly in the north of England, where so many constituencies that elected Labour MPs actually voted to leave the EU, some MPs are not listening to their constituents.

Sandy Martin: Does the Minister accept that, if we were to have a permanent customs union and to move in the direction that the Labour party has been calling for, the Government would not need to have a backstop and they might get the support of the party on this side of the House as well?

Robert Goodwill: Staying in the customs union is not what the people in Scarborough and Whitby voted for when they voted—62% was the figure—to leave the EU. In any case, I ask that this measure be approved.
Question put and agreed to.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (24 APRIL)

Ordered,
That at the sitting on Wednesday 24 April, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of the Leader of the Opposition as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption and for up to six hours from the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Jo Churchill.)

Looe Flood Protection Project

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jo Churchill.)

Sheryll Murray: It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on the Front Bench to respond to my debate. The town of Looe, in my constituency, will be familiar to many right hon. and hon. Members, and to millions of people across the country, for its glorious scenery, fishing heritage and working port, and for summer holidays on a golden sandy beach. I know and love the town and its community. It was my late husband’s home port for his fishing business, and it is now a privilege to represent the people of Looe in this House. However, behind the picture-postcard image, the very existence of Looe is under serious threat from flooding.
We will all be aware that many parts of the UK have experienced flooding in the recent past, but Looe is different. It is the most frequently flooded town in the UK. If scientists are correct about the impact of climate change, the risk to the town and its future prosperity can only be increased. Modelling for the Cornish south coast regeneration project has suggested that within a generation floods will be one metre worse, increasing the flooded area from 2.5 hectares to 16 hectares. That would be catastrophic for the town and the wider local economy.
I can testify to the resilience of Looe’s residents and businesses in the face of regular, devastating floods, which I have witnessed. I have seen at first hand their remarkable fortitude and inventiveness in dealing with the aftermath of floods, including the awful foul water pollution. But the impact is now so severe that it is threatening the viability of the local economy, with damages amounting to £39 million over the past five years alone, deterring investment and reducing opportunities for growth.
It is shocking that 65% of businesses in Looe have been flooded, costing each an average of £31,000. Many cannot get insurance so cannot, or understandably will not, invest further in their businesses. Worryingly, nearly a quarter of those businesses—the lifeblood of the local economy—have considered their future in the town. The flooding also deters new businesses from locating in Looe and shoppers and holidaymakers from visiting, and there is a detrimental effect on the wider community, as Looe’s economic footprint stretches far beyond the town and into communities, holiday parks and businesses right across South East Cornwall.
Looe is located in what can only be described as a geographical perfect storm. It sits at the bottom of the narrowest part of the Looe valley, where the river meets the sea. Numerous storms and predicted rising sea levels, combined with high tides, are making flooding commonplace. Typically, flood events occur several times a year. During the 2013-14 winter season, the events were particularly severe, and considerable damage occurred to the quay walls as waves surged over the harbour. The frequency of floods and their severity are clearly getting worse.

Jim Shannon: I sought the hon. Lady’s permission to intervene. She referred to the winter of 2013-14; in my constituency of Strangford there are some 96 coastal erosion locations, including a number of villages. That indicates the severity of what is taking place. I have written letters to Westminster Ministers on this matter. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential that a UK-wide fund is set up to address this matter now, before it is too late and we end up losing villages, which is possible, down my Ards peninsula and in towns throughout the UK because of an inability to deal with the pressures from flooding?

Sheryll Murray: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman and am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard his concerns.
Currently, flooding extends over 2.5 hectares. This at-risk area includes essential services and facilities such as the GP surgery, the police station, main food stores and cafes, as well as the fish market, which accounts for 10% of landings in Cornwall and is a national centre for the inshore day catch of high-quality, high-value fish, which is used to support many London restaurants. The fire station is also under threat—so much so that the fire engine has to be moved to the top of the hill during a flood. Essential transport links are at risk, including the main road bridge connecting east and west Looe, the railway station, and two miles of railway track, on which there have been 141 flooding incidents to date.
According to Looe harbour commissioners, flooding because of high sea-water levels, possibly combined with wave action in the inner harbour, is the dominant cause of water damage. High sea levels can occur when high tides coincide with storm surges, causing water levels in the inner harbour to rise and sometimes overtop the quay walls and/or adjacent low-lying parts of the town. When flooding incidents occur, the owners of a lot of the fishing boats put a plank along their vessels’ fenders to prevent the staffs that hold the quay in place from staving in the sides of their vessels. Wave action can speed up the process of flooding by causing waves to overtop the quay walls to lower-lying areas of the town adjacent to the inner harbour. In addition, wave action can cause structural damage to the harbour walls and structures adjacent to the inner harbour.
Also, surface water flooding from intense rainfall affects part of Looe. In addition, high tide levels prevent the discharge of water into the harbour, further exacerbating flooding associated with surface water. It is apparent from the surface water flood maps that floodwater accumulates on low-lying areas near the harbour. These risks are multiple and complex but must now be mitigated, and the huge potential for future investment and growth seized.
A partnership-based approach in consultation with the local community has been key in developing an economically viable and environmentally friendly solution to the flooding challenges. I must put on record my thanks to the lead partner, Cornwall Council, the Environment Agency, Looe Harbour Commissioners, Looe Town Council and East Looe Town Trust for all their work on the proposal, which I will outline briefly later.
I am also grateful to the commissioners and the council for funding the initial expert study, which has enabled the proposal to be produced, and it is supported  by both the local community—with more than 95% of the respondents in favour of the scheme—and landowners and aligned with the Looe neighbourhood plan. The proposal, if fully developed, funded and delivered, will allow Looe to protect key infrastructure, including removing more than 200 properties from flood risk and creating opportunities for investment. It is anticipated that there will be in excess of £47 million of growth benefits.
Briefly, phase 1 involves five projects: a tidal barrier installation to stop tidal flooding; an extension to the Banjo pier to improve river flow and bathing water quality; flood protection of east Looe beach to address wave action; an inner breakwater tidal barrier protection; and a new walkway from Pennyland in the town to Hannafore, restoring the missing link of the south-west coast path. Phase 2 will look to investigate the development of an outer breakwater and create a new working harbour.
Given my very personal interest in sea safety, I am also delighted that Looe Harbour Commissioners believe that the proposals will improve health and safety in the port and support the work of the emergency services such as the RNLI. I am pleased that at the heart of the proposal is the improved access to water for all, including for children, disabled people and the elderly through an all states of the tide easy access landing stage. There is also massive potential for enhanced recreational facilities and marine biology innovations such as mussel beds or even a lobster hatchery such as the one at Padstow. The possibilities are endless.
A further benefit from investment in flood defences will be to realise the growth of integrated travel and leisure opportunities. This includes a cycle network in the same vein as north Cornwall’s cycle links such as the very popular Camel Trail, which attracts half a million visitors a year. It is expected that the potential revenue from an integrated cycle network could be as much as £10 million per year. I am sure that many cycling businesses across south-east Cornwall would be delighted to get a spoke of this particular wheel.
Now for the challenging aspect of funding, which is why I am delighted to have secured this debate with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), responding. The cost of the overall scheme is currently estimated at £41 million. Further work is now required on the detailed design and bid for funding to integrate the Looe neighbourhood plan and develop plans for both the Looe Valley branch railway line and network of cycle paths. Cornwall Council has committed £2.3 million to undertake the detailed design and prepare the business case. It has also agreed terms to purchase land to increase the capacity of Looe railway station which links the town to the mainline at Liskeard. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership has also committed funding to assess the wider economic benefits of the project to south-east Cornwall. I want to put on record my thanks to the LEP for its financial commitments and work thus far.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that the work to date has been a great example of cross-organisational working, financing and community engagement. I am aware that DEFRA’s flood defence grant in aid funding cannot be provided for this initial stage of the scheme, which is why funding from Cornwall Council and other local partners is so welcome. I accept that the delivery of the  scheme is not a role for the Department and central Government alone. That is why I have been so keen to stress that this is about a partnership with all the authorities, as well as the local residents and businesses doing their bit every step of the way. However, given the significant economic, environment and social benefits, I hope that this approach can be replicated across Government Departments to secure the necessary capital funding for construction once the business case is submitted. This is expected to be in the next financial year of 2020-21. It is very encouraging that the Environment Agency has confirmed that £3.7 million of funding is eligible for a scheme that reduces flood risk in Looe, and has said that it will assess whether this can be increased to reflect the wider socioeconomic benefits of the project.
The benefits of the project reach far beyond the key objective of flood prevention and protection. It will safeguard the entire town centre, fishing fleet and harbour. Without it, the town centre is unlikely to remain viable beyond 20 to 30 years due to persistent and recurrent flooding. It is envisaged that the project will be a regeneration hub for the wider area, forming part of the strategic coastal transport hub for South East Cornwall and beyond. It will enable homes and jobs for local people, with the development of around 670 homes and more than 1 hectare of employment land. The scheme will protect Looe for a generation as the focal point of the local area. It will be able to flourish and grow. According to the Cornish south coast regeneration project, it will also support the wider economy of Cornwall.
Support and capital funding for the delivery of the Looe flood protection project will secure a sustainable future for Looe and harness the economic benefits for the town, surrounding communities, South East Cornwall and the wider county of Cornwall as a whole. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say.

Therese Coffey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this important debate. In fact, this is the first time that I have spoken to her in this House since I had the privilege of attending her wonderful marriage to the wonderful Bob Davidson less than a month ago. May I—on behalf of many people, I am sure—wish them both many years of happiness to come?
My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate for the Looe flood protection scheme and generally for growth in Cornwall and the south-west. We have discussed this issue before, when she also brought along people from Cornwall Council and commissioners from Looe harbour, and I welcome the opportunity to do so again. I take this opportunity to recognise the work that she has been doing to raise awareness of the flooding experienced by people and businesses in Looe. I commend her for taking a long-term view to managing flood risk and recognising how flood risk management infrastructure can contribute to the future prosperity of the people she represents.
I am mindful of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raising this issue again on behalf of his constituents. Although he will accept that  this is a devolved matter, the amount of money that this Government have put into protecting flood defences around the country is reflected in the Barnett formula. I hope that he will continue to put the case on behalf of his constituents.
I am also mindful of the challenges faced by the town in that it regularly experiences flooding. The town centre, harbour and key transport and community infrastructure are all located within the main flood zone. As a fellow MP for a coastal community, I recognise the national importance of our coast and the challenges that these areas face. Flood and coastal risk management is a high priority for the Government. I know very well the impacts that flooding can have on lives and livelihoods. Compelling evidence suggests that climate change may lead to increases in sea levels by the middle of this century. Both present significant risks, so we are putting in place robust, long-term national strategies to protect our coastal communities.
I am aware that the Environment Agency has identified a potential option for a flood risk management scheme in Looe, using demountable defences, at a cost of approximately £10 million. My hon. Friend referred to schemes costing £40 million, and we need to consider those carefully. I am also aware that the local community prefers a wider socio-economic regeneration scheme, to which she referred extensively, that includes a tidal barrier to manage flood risk. Cornwall Council is now leading on the delivery of this preferred option, with support from the Environment Agency that she generously recognises. The preferred scheme to which she refers consists of five elements that would all need to be delivered to meet the strategic objectives of the scheme. These include tidal barriers, beach protections and a pier extension. In terms of the flood defence grant-in-aid funding, my hon. Friend recognised that on today’s formula that scheme would qualify for only £3.7 million, which would not fully fund the proposal. However, I commend her and Cornwall Council, which is using £2.3 million of its economic development match funding to deliver the detailed design work for the scheme. The designs will be used to attract funding from wider sources. As she points out, she hopes, rightly, to continue to make the case on why this may attract further central Government funding as well.
As well as protecting communities, flood risk management systems create improved confidence in a local economy, encouraging growth and supporting environmental improvements. It is vital that we take a long-term view of the environment, as outlined in our 25-year environment plan. I commend Cornwall Council, Looe harbour commissioners and the community for taking a wider regeneration approach that has a high level of public and business support. While the proposal would reduce the risk of flooding, there are further benefits in enabling development, generating growth and improving the bathing water quality. The improvement of the travel network and cycle networks would also contribute to the economic prosperity of the region and further encourage tourism. My hon. Friend talked about a spoke in a wheel. I wish it were as cheap as a penny- farthing, but she will recognise, as will the hon. Member for Strangford, that that is not necessarily the case.
These benefits tie in with a number of wider Government aims. I encourage my hon. Friend and the local partners to continue their efforts to identify further funding from  the full range of available sources. The partnership funding policy that this Government introduced clarifies the level of investment that communities can expect from the Government so that it is clear what levels of partnership funding they will need from other sources to allow projects to proceed. The overall call on the grant-in-aid funding exceeds the total amount of funding available, so we need to prioritise to optimise the overall outcomes from the investment of taxpayers’ money. The current formula takes into account the impacts of flooding, including the frequency, severity and depth of potential floods and the impacts on health. It is people-centred in the sense that it weighs the Government support more towards households, and hence the impacts on people, than on other economic benefits, including the impacts on businesses. As it stands, there are no plans to change the current funding formula before 2021, though I am very conscious of the demands on, in particular, coastal communities and more sparsely populated communities. I am therefore considering what we can do within the next spending review and the funding formula change to consider the impact on local employers and, in turn, on local communities.
Overall, the Government are investing £2.6 billion to better protect the country from flooding, and this, through partnership funding, will attract more than £600 million of additional investment. That will fund well over 1,000 flood defence schemes, which will better protect 300,000 homes by 2021 and is projected to save the economy more than £30 billion in avoided damage. As well as capital for new flood defences, between 2015 and 2020 we will spend more than £1 billion on the maintenance of flood defence assets.
Partnership funding, to which my hon. Friend referred, can be secured from a range of sources, including local beneficiaries, partners and growth funds. Early indications suggest that up to 25% more schemes will go ahead in the coming years than if project costs were met by the Government alone. As my hon. Friend will recognise, it  is not possible to deliver every scheme in the current programme that would reduce flood risk, and it is my duty as Floods Minister to take a national perspective on flood risk management. However, I assure her that I am fully alive to the issues she has raised regarding the businesses and residents of Looe.
The Environment Agency will continue to support and work with local partners on a positive solution for Looe, and I encourage the council and partners in their bids to secure additional funding. I very much look forward to seeing how the scheme develops, including its potential to develop local tourism in an environmentally sustainable way.
I thank my hon. Friend again for raising this issue. The Government, the Environment Agency and our flood defence delivery partners entirely understand the challenges present in Looe, and we will continue to support Cornwall Council and its partners in developing the flood scheme. I commend the long-term view to managing the flood risk in the town and considering wider socioeconomic regeneration. I encourage people to continue to work together, with my hon. Friend’s leadership, to identify a solution that meets Looe’s long-term needs.
As I said, I am looking at the funding arrangements ahead of the next capital programme, and we are working closely with the Treasury to consider future investment needs and the Government’s role in supporting the resilience of communities. I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. While I recognise that I have not been able to sign a cheque to guarantee the future of these flood defences, she continues to make me aware of what matters to our coastal communities, and we will continue to have those discussions.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.